<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_13_1436209</id>
	<title>Forget LCDs and LEDs, Here Come LPDs</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1263395700000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>waderoush writes <i>"It's not every day you hear about a brand new display technology, but San Jose, CA-based Prysm came out of stealth mode yesterday to talk about its plans for manufacturing <a href="http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2010/01/13/prysm-hopes-laser-driven-screens-will-outshine-lcd-led-displays/">laser phosphor displays</a>, or LPDs. The new devices, which the company will show off at the Integrated Systems Europe trade show in Amsterdam next month, reportedly use 25 percent as much electricity as equivalently-sized LCD screens. And they should be easier to manufacture too, since they don't have a backplane of transistors like LCD screens: the image is generated by a laser beam that sweeps across phosphor stripes under the control of a scanning mirror. The venture-funded startup, which plans to build and sell LPD screens under its own brand, is promoting them as a low-cost, low-maintenance way to display information in lobbies, airports, broadcast studios, command centers, and the like."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>waderoush writes " It 's not every day you hear about a brand new display technology , but San Jose , CA-based Prysm came out of stealth mode yesterday to talk about its plans for manufacturing laser phosphor displays , or LPDs .
The new devices , which the company will show off at the Integrated Systems Europe trade show in Amsterdam next month , reportedly use 25 percent as much electricity as equivalently-sized LCD screens .
And they should be easier to manufacture too , since they do n't have a backplane of transistors like LCD screens : the image is generated by a laser beam that sweeps across phosphor stripes under the control of a scanning mirror .
The venture-funded startup , which plans to build and sell LPD screens under its own brand , is promoting them as a low-cost , low-maintenance way to display information in lobbies , airports , broadcast studios , command centers , and the like .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>waderoush writes "It's not every day you hear about a brand new display technology, but San Jose, CA-based Prysm came out of stealth mode yesterday to talk about its plans for manufacturing laser phosphor displays, or LPDs.
The new devices, which the company will show off at the Integrated Systems Europe trade show in Amsterdam next month, reportedly use 25 percent as much electricity as equivalently-sized LCD screens.
And they should be easier to manufacture too, since they don't have a backplane of transistors like LCD screens: the image is generated by a laser beam that sweeps across phosphor stripes under the control of a scanning mirror.
The venture-funded startup, which plans to build and sell LPD screens under its own brand, is promoting them as a low-cost, low-maintenance way to display information in lobbies, airports, broadcast studios, command centers, and the like.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30757338</id>
	<title>MS...are you listening?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263382320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, do you have to buy the disk?  Will you have to buy a new disk every year?</p><p>HEY MICROSOFT!!! Are you paying attention?  Everyone else can get this WITHOUT PAYING for a service on top of Netflix!  Why is this still Live Gold only?  In fact why do we still have to pay for multi-player?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , do you have to buy the disk ?
Will you have to buy a new disk every year ? HEY MICROSOFT ! ! !
Are you paying attention ?
Everyone else can get this WITHOUT PAYING for a service on top of Netflix !
Why is this still Live Gold only ?
In fact why do we still have to pay for multi-player ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, do you have to buy the disk?
Will you have to buy a new disk every year?HEY MICROSOFT!!!
Are you paying attention?
Everyone else can get this WITHOUT PAYING for a service on top of Netflix!
Why is this still Live Gold only?
In fact why do we still have to pay for multi-player?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30753324</id>
	<title>Re:Similar idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263408900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So in short, you are once again FECKless, as you were before you started your project?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So in short , you are once again FECKless , as you were before you started your project ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So in short, you are once again FECKless, as you were before you started your project?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30753850</id>
	<title>Re:How Thick is the Display?</title>
	<author>Pinky's Brain</author>
	<datestamp>1263411240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Precision optics seem like overkill to me<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... all that shit with f-theta lenses and optical correction of pin-cushions seems so<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... archaic.</p><p>As long as the distortion is static and a sufficient maximum distance between lines is maintained you can just correct it digitally can't you? Transistors are cheap nowadays, really really cheap, hardware to perform an image warp on a HD signal is pennies worth of die space on an ASIC (in volume, the million dollar mask costs have to be earned back first of course).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Precision optics seem like overkill to me ... all that shit with f-theta lenses and optical correction of pin-cushions seems so ... archaic.As long as the distortion is static and a sufficient maximum distance between lines is maintained you can just correct it digitally ca n't you ?
Transistors are cheap nowadays , really really cheap , hardware to perform an image warp on a HD signal is pennies worth of die space on an ASIC ( in volume , the million dollar mask costs have to be earned back first of course ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Precision optics seem like overkill to me ... all that shit with f-theta lenses and optical correction of pin-cushions seems so ... archaic.As long as the distortion is static and a sufficient maximum distance between lines is maintained you can just correct it digitally can't you?
Transistors are cheap nowadays, really really cheap, hardware to perform an image warp on a HD signal is pennies worth of die space on an ASIC (in volume, the million dollar mask costs have to be earned back first of course).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750838</id>
	<title>Argh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263399480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had a similar idea, only instead of a scanning mirror, I was going to use chunks of neutronium to <i>bend</i> the light beams. I've had a little trouble sourcing the materials, though...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had a similar idea , only instead of a scanning mirror , I was going to use chunks of neutronium to bend the light beams .
I 've had a little trouble sourcing the materials , though.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had a similar idea, only instead of a scanning mirror, I was going to use chunks of neutronium to bend the light beams.
I've had a little trouble sourcing the materials, though...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752012</id>
	<title>Re:LPD screen or LPD screen?</title>
	<author>Mathinker</author>
	<datestamp>1263404220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Epic funny...</p><p>You're up there in the running with <a href="http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=981505&amp;cid=25217393" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=981505&amp;cid=25217393</a> [slashdot.org] and <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=981353&amp;cid=25214739" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=981353&amp;cid=25214739</a> [slashdot.org] (warning: all comments need to be read in the context of the corresponding OP's and their particular threads.)</p><p>Of course there's also <a href="http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1130061&amp;cid=26877133" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1130061&amp;cid=26877133</a> [slashdot.org] but he utilized vulgarity to enhance his humor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Epic funny...You 're up there in the running with http : //it.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 981505&amp;cid = 25217393 [ slashdot.org ] and http : //science.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 981353&amp;cid = 25214739 [ slashdot.org ] ( warning : all comments need to be read in the context of the corresponding OP 's and their particular threads .
) Of course there 's also http : //ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1130061&amp;cid = 26877133 [ slashdot.org ] but he utilized vulgarity to enhance his humor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Epic funny...You're up there in the running with http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=981505&amp;cid=25217393 [slashdot.org] and http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=981353&amp;cid=25214739 [slashdot.org] (warning: all comments need to be read in the context of the corresponding OP's and their particular threads.
)Of course there's also http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1130061&amp;cid=26877133 [slashdot.org] but he utilized vulgarity to enhance his humor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30755548</id>
	<title>Re:do not want</title>
	<author>omnichad</author>
	<datestamp>1263374640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>well there's certainly a DELAY in the DECAY.  Just saying...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>well there 's certainly a DELAY in the DECAY .
Just saying.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well there's certainly a DELAY in the DECAY.
Just saying...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752418</id>
	<title>Screen savers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263405600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah....screen-saver software companies are behind this. With this archaic technology, screen savers will really be screen savers once again!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah....screen-saver software companies are behind this .
With this archaic technology , screen savers will really be screen savers once again !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah....screen-saver software companies are behind this.
With this archaic technology, screen savers will really be screen savers once again!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752084</id>
	<title>Re:phosphor burn?</title>
	<author>Crudely\_Indecent</author>
	<datestamp>1263404520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That shouldn't be an issue because the weight of electrons is greater than the weight of photons.</p><p>You see, photons are light.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That should n't be an issue because the weight of electrons is greater than the weight of photons.You see , photons are light .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That shouldn't be an issue because the weight of electrons is greater than the weight of photons.You see, photons are light.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30754784</id>
	<title>Re:do not want</title>
	<author>Pinky's Brain</author>
	<datestamp>1263414720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Delay? That's not how the phosphors on high refresh rate CRTs work at all anymore<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... they basically just flash (intensity falls off by a factor 1000 within a msec). You can engineer phosphors without afterglow at all. Long afterglow phosphors are from the early days of TVs<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... "modern" CRT monitors are basically strobes (which is ideal for motion perception<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... capture and hold blurs, regardless of the transition speed).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Delay ?
That 's not how the phosphors on high refresh rate CRTs work at all anymore ... they basically just flash ( intensity falls off by a factor 1000 within a msec ) .
You can engineer phosphors without afterglow at all .
Long afterglow phosphors are from the early days of TVs ... " modern " CRT monitors are basically strobes ( which is ideal for motion perception ... capture and hold blurs , regardless of the transition speed ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Delay?
That's not how the phosphors on high refresh rate CRTs work at all anymore ... they basically just flash (intensity falls off by a factor 1000 within a msec).
You can engineer phosphors without afterglow at all.
Long afterglow phosphors are from the early days of TVs ... "modern" CRT monitors are basically strobes (which is ideal for motion perception ... capture and hold blurs, regardless of the transition speed).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752278</id>
	<title>Re:Laser + Phospher = burn in?</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1263405180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Doesn't PLASMA tv use lasers...</p><p>No.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Does n't PLASMA tv use lasers...No .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Doesn't PLASMA tv use lasers...No.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752188</id>
	<title>Re:Command Centers</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1263404820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Looks cool on screen but just like Gorilla arms from Minority Report, I think it wouldn't really be practical unless you...</p></div><p>Unless you... have a thetan level that's OVER 9000!!! ?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks cool on screen but just like Gorilla arms from Minority Report , I think it would n't really be practical unless you...Unless you... have a thetan level that 's OVER 9000 ! ! !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks cool on screen but just like Gorilla arms from Minority Report, I think it wouldn't really be practical unless you...Unless you... have a thetan level that's OVER 9000!!!
?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752474</id>
	<title>Re:phosphor burn?</title>
	<author>pmontra</author>
	<datestamp>1263405960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good, so screensavers will get again a real reason to exist.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good , so screensavers will get again a real reason to exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good, so screensavers will get again a real reason to exist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752300</id>
	<title>Re:Forget LAPD, I'm waiting for FEDs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263405240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Vaporware, just like most new display techs. We were supposed to have surface-conduction electron-emitter displays on the market in 2006. Electroluminescent displays (for full-color video - restricted colors are available) have been "almost here" for decades. Ditto for OLED and GLV (laser).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vaporware , just like most new display techs .
We were supposed to have surface-conduction electron-emitter displays on the market in 2006 .
Electroluminescent displays ( for full-color video - restricted colors are available ) have been " almost here " for decades .
Ditto for OLED and GLV ( laser ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vaporware, just like most new display techs.
We were supposed to have surface-conduction electron-emitter displays on the market in 2006.
Electroluminescent displays (for full-color video - restricted colors are available) have been "almost here" for decades.
Ditto for OLED and GLV (laser).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751308</id>
	<title>Similar to LaserVue?</title>
	<author>RingDev</author>
	<datestamp>1263401280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it is similar to Mitshibishi's LaserVue <a href="http://www.mitsubishi-tv.com/product/L65A90" title="mitsubishi-tv.com">http://www.mitsubishi-tv.com/product/L65A90</a> [mitsubishi-tv.com] a 65" display would be around 10" deep.</p><p>-Rick</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it is similar to Mitshibishi 's LaserVue http : //www.mitsubishi-tv.com/product/L65A90 [ mitsubishi-tv.com ] a 65 " display would be around 10 " deep.-Rick</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it is similar to Mitshibishi's LaserVue http://www.mitsubishi-tv.com/product/L65A90 [mitsubishi-tv.com] a 65" display would be around 10" deep.-Rick</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752638</id>
	<title>Re:phosphor burn?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1263406440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't RTFA but I thought of a laser-driven TV quite a while back. I don't understand why they would phosphors at all. It seems that with three different colored lasers they could simply use translucent glass.</p><p>Thinking about it, though, it's probably because the lasers don't produce light of the right colors to combine realistically.</p><p>However, I've seen phosphor burn on computer displays, particularly ATM machines, but I've never seen a TV affacted like that, except really old ones, and in that case the picture just gets dimmer, and you can adjust the strength of the electron guns to compensate. Old TVs had knobs on the back to adjust the guns' strength.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't RTFA but I thought of a laser-driven TV quite a while back .
I do n't understand why they would phosphors at all .
It seems that with three different colored lasers they could simply use translucent glass.Thinking about it , though , it 's probably because the lasers do n't produce light of the right colors to combine realistically.However , I 've seen phosphor burn on computer displays , particularly ATM machines , but I 've never seen a TV affacted like that , except really old ones , and in that case the picture just gets dimmer , and you can adjust the strength of the electron guns to compensate .
Old TVs had knobs on the back to adjust the guns ' strength .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't RTFA but I thought of a laser-driven TV quite a while back.
I don't understand why they would phosphors at all.
It seems that with three different colored lasers they could simply use translucent glass.Thinking about it, though, it's probably because the lasers don't produce light of the right colors to combine realistically.However, I've seen phosphor burn on computer displays, particularly ATM machines, but I've never seen a TV affacted like that, except really old ones, and in that case the picture just gets dimmer, and you can adjust the strength of the electron guns to compensate.
Old TVs had knobs on the back to adjust the guns' strength.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752156</id>
	<title>Re:Hmm</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1263404700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the other hand, I just filed patents for a new method of laser eye surgery.</p><p>Simply sit there, watching American Idol unblinkingly like the fat slob you are.</p><p>The integrated web cam will composite an image of your retina from millions taken over a period of weeks.  Then, the lasers will flash short, invisible, corrective pulses as you stare at Ryan fucking Seacrest.</p><p>Eyedol on Idol - the ONLY way to improve your vision as you watch tv.  Exclusively on FOX.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , I just filed patents for a new method of laser eye surgery.Simply sit there , watching American Idol unblinkingly like the fat slob you are.The integrated web cam will composite an image of your retina from millions taken over a period of weeks .
Then , the lasers will flash short , invisible , corrective pulses as you stare at Ryan fucking Seacrest.Eyedol on Idol - the ONLY way to improve your vision as you watch tv .
Exclusively on FOX .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, I just filed patents for a new method of laser eye surgery.Simply sit there, watching American Idol unblinkingly like the fat slob you are.The integrated web cam will composite an image of your retina from millions taken over a period of weeks.
Then, the lasers will flash short, invisible, corrective pulses as you stare at Ryan fucking Seacrest.Eyedol on Idol - the ONLY way to improve your vision as you watch tv.
Exclusively on FOX.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751902</id>
	<title>Re:LPD screen or LPD screen?</title>
	<author>cmiller173</author>
	<datestamp>1263403800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is for this sort of funny that the moderation system should go to 6.  Very good sir.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is for this sort of funny that the moderation system should go to 6 .
Very good sir .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is for this sort of funny that the moderation system should go to 6.
Very good sir.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750922</id>
	<title>LPD?</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1263399840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you sure they didn't just mistype DLP.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you sure they did n't just mistype DLP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you sure they didn't just mistype DLP.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752280</id>
	<title>Business Plan is a *Fail*</title>
	<author>mpapet</author>
	<datestamp>1263405180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>which plans to build and sell LPD screens under its own brand,</i></p><p>I'm going to ignore the manufacturing problems they will probably have for now and assume that mass production will happen without an issue.</p><p>They are going to enter a pool with *the* biggest sharks in display technology swimming alongside them and expect to come out ahead on this?</p><p>The sharks first strike will be offering a vaguely similar product heavily discounted.<br>The sharks second strike will be a 'generous' offer to license the technology just to have it copied/never reach market.  They are still actively discounting something similar, so their competitors have both the carrot and stick working 24/7.<br>The sharks third strike is to litigate, litigate, litigate.</p><p>At one of those strike points, the VC will throw in the towel.</p><p>Welcome to American entrepreneurship version 2010.</p><p>Oh, I tried to come up with a car analogy, but it just didn't materialize.  Go mixed metaphors!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>which plans to build and sell LPD screens under its own brand,I 'm going to ignore the manufacturing problems they will probably have for now and assume that mass production will happen without an issue.They are going to enter a pool with * the * biggest sharks in display technology swimming alongside them and expect to come out ahead on this ? The sharks first strike will be offering a vaguely similar product heavily discounted.The sharks second strike will be a 'generous ' offer to license the technology just to have it copied/never reach market .
They are still actively discounting something similar , so their competitors have both the carrot and stick working 24/7.The sharks third strike is to litigate , litigate , litigate.At one of those strike points , the VC will throw in the towel.Welcome to American entrepreneurship version 2010.Oh , I tried to come up with a car analogy , but it just did n't materialize .
Go mixed metaphors !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>which plans to build and sell LPD screens under its own brand,I'm going to ignore the manufacturing problems they will probably have for now and assume that mass production will happen without an issue.They are going to enter a pool with *the* biggest sharks in display technology swimming alongside them and expect to come out ahead on this?The sharks first strike will be offering a vaguely similar product heavily discounted.The sharks second strike will be a 'generous' offer to license the technology just to have it copied/never reach market.
They are still actively discounting something similar, so their competitors have both the carrot and stick working 24/7.The sharks third strike is to litigate, litigate, litigate.At one of those strike points, the VC will throw in the towel.Welcome to American entrepreneurship version 2010.Oh, I tried to come up with a car analogy, but it just didn't materialize.
Go mixed metaphors!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752348</id>
	<title>Re:Ouch</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1263405420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Even at 240Hz, I did still notice some streaking, though (watching a football game).</p></div><p>No you didn't.  You wanted to see it so you saw it.</p><p>Any streaking you did notice would have been a result of the source and not the display.  Dollars to doughnuts (or is it doughnuts to dollars in this economy?) says pa-in-law is running 1080i.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even at 240Hz , I did still notice some streaking , though ( watching a football game ) .No you did n't .
You wanted to see it so you saw it.Any streaking you did notice would have been a result of the source and not the display .
Dollars to doughnuts ( or is it doughnuts to dollars in this economy ?
) says pa-in-law is running 1080i .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even at 240Hz, I did still notice some streaking, though (watching a football game).No you didn't.
You wanted to see it so you saw it.Any streaking you did notice would have been a result of the source and not the display.
Dollars to doughnuts (or is it doughnuts to dollars in this economy?
) says pa-in-law is running 1080i.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751254</id>
	<title>So it's a CRT ... without the CRT?</title>
	<author>Ihlosi</author>
	<datestamp>1263401160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So they took the basic idea of a CRT and replaced the electron beam with a laser and a moving mirror?</p><p>Sounds interesting, but I guess this will bring back all of the problems of a CRT (sharpness isn't guaranteed, image may flicker depending on the refresh rate, etc), plus a few new problems (mechanical parts that might be subject to wear, etc).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So they took the basic idea of a CRT and replaced the electron beam with a laser and a moving mirror ? Sounds interesting , but I guess this will bring back all of the problems of a CRT ( sharpness is n't guaranteed , image may flicker depending on the refresh rate , etc ) , plus a few new problems ( mechanical parts that might be subject to wear , etc ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So they took the basic idea of a CRT and replaced the electron beam with a laser and a moving mirror?Sounds interesting, but I guess this will bring back all of the problems of a CRT (sharpness isn't guaranteed, image may flicker depending on the refresh rate, etc), plus a few new problems (mechanical parts that might be subject to wear, etc).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750972</id>
	<title>Similar idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263400020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had a similar idea once, except using electrons instead of lasers. It also required a vacuum tube for the electrons to travel through. I called it the Fluorescent Electron Cathode Konduit, or FECK for short. After considering it a while, I thought the concept was rather ludicrious and without merit, so abandoned it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had a similar idea once , except using electrons instead of lasers .
It also required a vacuum tube for the electrons to travel through .
I called it the Fluorescent Electron Cathode Konduit , or FECK for short .
After considering it a while , I thought the concept was rather ludicrious and without merit , so abandoned it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had a similar idea once, except using electrons instead of lasers.
It also required a vacuum tube for the electrons to travel through.
I called it the Fluorescent Electron Cathode Konduit, or FECK for short.
After considering it a while, I thought the concept was rather ludicrious and without merit, so abandoned it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751230</id>
	<title>Re:How Thick is the Display?</title>
	<author>Angst Badger</author>
	<datestamp>1263401040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a bigger step backwards than you might think. There were big screen TV systems attempted long before color TV that used essentially the same setup, but using beams of ordinary light instead of lasers. They actually worked surprisingly well for the electromechanical kludges that they were, aside from the size issue. In fact, the degree of similarity is enough, IMHO, to count as prior art.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a bigger step backwards than you might think .
There were big screen TV systems attempted long before color TV that used essentially the same setup , but using beams of ordinary light instead of lasers .
They actually worked surprisingly well for the electromechanical kludges that they were , aside from the size issue .
In fact , the degree of similarity is enough , IMHO , to count as prior art .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a bigger step backwards than you might think.
There were big screen TV systems attempted long before color TV that used essentially the same setup, but using beams of ordinary light instead of lasers.
They actually worked surprisingly well for the electromechanical kludges that they were, aside from the size issue.
In fact, the degree of similarity is enough, IMHO, to count as prior art.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30755906</id>
	<title>Re:How Thick is the Display?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263375960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, initial cost vs energy cost + maintenance costs will be the reason to target big displays, also they claim it's better for seamless arrays. But what they omit may be important too. The only time their site mentions "high quality video" is for refresh rate. It's possible they don't have equivalent colour fidelity yet, or the fine detail required for text on small screens.</p><p>'Theaters' are mentioned in the examples in TFA, but that may only mean the information displays in the lobbies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , initial cost vs energy cost + maintenance costs will be the reason to target big displays , also they claim it 's better for seamless arrays .
But what they omit may be important too .
The only time their site mentions " high quality video " is for refresh rate .
It 's possible they do n't have equivalent colour fidelity yet , or the fine detail required for text on small screens .
'Theaters ' are mentioned in the examples in TFA , but that may only mean the information displays in the lobbies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, initial cost vs energy cost + maintenance costs will be the reason to target big displays, also they claim it's better for seamless arrays.
But what they omit may be important too.
The only time their site mentions "high quality video" is for refresh rate.
It's possible they don't have equivalent colour fidelity yet, or the fine detail required for text on small screens.
'Theaters' are mentioned in the examples in TFA, but that may only mean the information displays in the lobbies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30754814</id>
	<title>Re:Forget LAPD, I'm waiting for FEDs</title>
	<author>Areyoukiddingme</author>
	<datestamp>1263414900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
And Slashdot editors no longer even post FED-related stories, despite on-going activity in Japan.
</p><p>
Hmm.  And things have been going on that I hadn't noticed because of it.
</p><p>
Sony was the last company to attempt production.  They seem to have intentionally scuttled the project by spinning it off as Field Emission Technologies and starving it of funds.  The subsidiary was trying to put together a factory for production of carbon nanotube-based displays for production in 2009, but failed due to an inability to raise capital.  (As a wholly-owned Sony subsidiary.  Bullshit meter is ticking up pretty high, here...)  Looks to me like the powers that be in southeast Asia are determined to wring every last drop of revenue out of their LCD panel factory investments before they produce a substantially better quality display.  Or possibly I'm attributing to malice what can more easily be explained by Sony's raging incompetent management...
</p><p>
SED technology, also substantially superior to LCD for reasons very similar to FED, may finally resurface, more than a decade after the original patent license agreement.  In May of 2007, Canon lost the patent lawsuit (in a Texas court, suplies!) brought against them by Applied Nanotech (or Nano-Proprietary; the name seems to have changed).  The jury decided that Applied Nano had suffered no damage, however, so Canon was not required to pay any penalty.  The judge ruled that Canon had breached the license agreement, thereby allowing Applied Nano to terminate the license agreement while keeping the $5.5 million license fee they got from Canon.  Applied Nano had also tried to claim fraud on the part of Canon and assorted other crap.  All of that was dismissed.
</p><p>
The lawsuit brought out that number, and here we understand the reason for the lawsuit.  Applied Nano got greedy.  Very greedy.  Somebody showed them the size of the worldwide TV/monitor market and they decided they deserved more than a one-time $5.5 million.  They wanted the right to terminate the license and renegotiate it on a per-unit basis, and rake in the dough on every unit sold.  They were happy to accept millions for the license, until they got the idea they could rake off hundreds of millions over the lifetime of the patents.
</p><p>
For once, greed lost.  Canon appealed and in July of 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit <a href="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions\%5Cpub\%5C07/07-50640-CV0.wpd.pdf" title="uscourts.gov">ruled</a> [uscourts.gov] that while Canon's establishment of SED, Inc. as a joint venture with Toshiba did not qualify as a subsidiary, Canon's buyout of Toshiba's stake in SED means SED, Inc. does now qualify as a Canon subsidiary, and that termination of Canon's license to use the Applied Nano patents was not an available remedy for Canon's material breach of license.  The court reinstated Canon's license, under its original terms.  They quoted from the original contract:</p><blockquote><div><p>Canon paid a onetime lump sum of $5,555,555.55 and received a "fully paid-up, worldwide,
royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, nonexclusive license (without the right to sublicense)" that "shall continue in full force and effect until expiration of the last to expire of the LICENSED PATENTS."</p></div></blockquote><p>And here is where the wheels came off of Applied Nano's ideas of revoking and renegotiating.  Canon is incorporated in New York State, in the US, where the law says that the plain language of the contract applies.  The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged that and said that contract terms that specifically say "irrevocable and perpetual" really <i>are</i> irrevocable and perpetual.  If one of the parties materially breaches the contract, the aggrieved party has the right to force the perpetrator to mend their ways and move back into compliance with the terms of the contract, but they don't have the right to terminate the contract.
</p><p>
So in theory at least, the way is clear for Canon to start manufacturing SEDs.  And has been for a year and a half.  There wasn't a single SED to be seen at CES 2009 or CES 2010.  Possibly Canon has gotten shy about publicity without being able to deliver, which would be nice, but more likely they're having troubles getting SEDs into production at a price point that's even remotely competitive with LCDs.  I still carry a torch for the promise of FEDs and SEDs (lower power consumption than LCDs, CRT-grade color fidelity and response times (<i>no display blur!</i>), while being nearly as thin as OLED displays), but I have to admit the prospect of getting my hands on one is looking grim.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And Slashdot editors no longer even post FED-related stories , despite on-going activity in Japan .
Hmm. And things have been going on that I had n't noticed because of it .
Sony was the last company to attempt production .
They seem to have intentionally scuttled the project by spinning it off as Field Emission Technologies and starving it of funds .
The subsidiary was trying to put together a factory for production of carbon nanotube-based displays for production in 2009 , but failed due to an inability to raise capital .
( As a wholly-owned Sony subsidiary .
Bullshit meter is ticking up pretty high , here... ) Looks to me like the powers that be in southeast Asia are determined to wring every last drop of revenue out of their LCD panel factory investments before they produce a substantially better quality display .
Or possibly I 'm attributing to malice what can more easily be explained by Sony 's raging incompetent management.. . SED technology , also substantially superior to LCD for reasons very similar to FED , may finally resurface , more than a decade after the original patent license agreement .
In May of 2007 , Canon lost the patent lawsuit ( in a Texas court , suplies !
) brought against them by Applied Nanotech ( or Nano-Proprietary ; the name seems to have changed ) .
The jury decided that Applied Nano had suffered no damage , however , so Canon was not required to pay any penalty .
The judge ruled that Canon had breached the license agreement , thereby allowing Applied Nano to terminate the license agreement while keeping the $ 5.5 million license fee they got from Canon .
Applied Nano had also tried to claim fraud on the part of Canon and assorted other crap .
All of that was dismissed .
The lawsuit brought out that number , and here we understand the reason for the lawsuit .
Applied Nano got greedy .
Very greedy .
Somebody showed them the size of the worldwide TV/monitor market and they decided they deserved more than a one-time $ 5.5 million .
They wanted the right to terminate the license and renegotiate it on a per-unit basis , and rake in the dough on every unit sold .
They were happy to accept millions for the license , until they got the idea they could rake off hundreds of millions over the lifetime of the patents .
For once , greed lost .
Canon appealed and in July of 2008 , the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled [ uscourts.gov ] that while Canon 's establishment of SED , Inc. as a joint venture with Toshiba did not qualify as a subsidiary , Canon 's buyout of Toshiba 's stake in SED means SED , Inc. does now qualify as a Canon subsidiary , and that termination of Canon 's license to use the Applied Nano patents was not an available remedy for Canon 's material breach of license .
The court reinstated Canon 's license , under its original terms .
They quoted from the original contract : Canon paid a onetime lump sum of $ 5,555,555.55 and received a " fully paid-up , worldwide , royalty-free , irrevocable , perpetual , nonexclusive license ( without the right to sublicense ) " that " shall continue in full force and effect until expiration of the last to expire of the LICENSED PATENTS .
" And here is where the wheels came off of Applied Nano 's ideas of revoking and renegotiating .
Canon is incorporated in New York State , in the US , where the law says that the plain language of the contract applies .
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged that and said that contract terms that specifically say " irrevocable and perpetual " really are irrevocable and perpetual .
If one of the parties materially breaches the contract , the aggrieved party has the right to force the perpetrator to mend their ways and move back into compliance with the terms of the contract , but they do n't have the right to terminate the contract .
So in theory at least , the way is clear for Canon to start manufacturing SEDs .
And has been for a year and a half .
There was n't a single SED to be seen at CES 2009 or CES 2010 .
Possibly Canon has gotten shy about publicity without being able to deliver , which would be nice , but more likely they 're having troubles getting SEDs into production at a price point that 's even remotely competitive with LCDs .
I still carry a torch for the promise of FEDs and SEDs ( lower power consumption than LCDs , CRT-grade color fidelity and response times ( no display blur !
) , while being nearly as thin as OLED displays ) , but I have to admit the prospect of getting my hands on one is looking grim .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
And Slashdot editors no longer even post FED-related stories, despite on-going activity in Japan.
Hmm.  And things have been going on that I hadn't noticed because of it.
Sony was the last company to attempt production.
They seem to have intentionally scuttled the project by spinning it off as Field Emission Technologies and starving it of funds.
The subsidiary was trying to put together a factory for production of carbon nanotube-based displays for production in 2009, but failed due to an inability to raise capital.
(As a wholly-owned Sony subsidiary.
Bullshit meter is ticking up pretty high, here...)  Looks to me like the powers that be in southeast Asia are determined to wring every last drop of revenue out of their LCD panel factory investments before they produce a substantially better quality display.
Or possibly I'm attributing to malice what can more easily be explained by Sony's raging incompetent management...

SED technology, also substantially superior to LCD for reasons very similar to FED, may finally resurface, more than a decade after the original patent license agreement.
In May of 2007, Canon lost the patent lawsuit (in a Texas court, suplies!
) brought against them by Applied Nanotech (or Nano-Proprietary; the name seems to have changed).
The jury decided that Applied Nano had suffered no damage, however, so Canon was not required to pay any penalty.
The judge ruled that Canon had breached the license agreement, thereby allowing Applied Nano to terminate the license agreement while keeping the $5.5 million license fee they got from Canon.
Applied Nano had also tried to claim fraud on the part of Canon and assorted other crap.
All of that was dismissed.
The lawsuit brought out that number, and here we understand the reason for the lawsuit.
Applied Nano got greedy.
Very greedy.
Somebody showed them the size of the worldwide TV/monitor market and they decided they deserved more than a one-time $5.5 million.
They wanted the right to terminate the license and renegotiate it on a per-unit basis, and rake in the dough on every unit sold.
They were happy to accept millions for the license, until they got the idea they could rake off hundreds of millions over the lifetime of the patents.
For once, greed lost.
Canon appealed and in July of 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled [uscourts.gov] that while Canon's establishment of SED, Inc. as a joint venture with Toshiba did not qualify as a subsidiary, Canon's buyout of Toshiba's stake in SED means SED, Inc. does now qualify as a Canon subsidiary, and that termination of Canon's license to use the Applied Nano patents was not an available remedy for Canon's material breach of license.
The court reinstated Canon's license, under its original terms.
They quoted from the original contract:Canon paid a onetime lump sum of $5,555,555.55 and received a "fully paid-up, worldwide,
royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, nonexclusive license (without the right to sublicense)" that "shall continue in full force and effect until expiration of the last to expire of the LICENSED PATENTS.
"And here is where the wheels came off of Applied Nano's ideas of revoking and renegotiating.
Canon is incorporated in New York State, in the US, where the law says that the plain language of the contract applies.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged that and said that contract terms that specifically say "irrevocable and perpetual" really are irrevocable and perpetual.
If one of the parties materially breaches the contract, the aggrieved party has the right to force the perpetrator to mend their ways and move back into compliance with the terms of the contract, but they don't have the right to terminate the contract.
So in theory at least, the way is clear for Canon to start manufacturing SEDs.
And has been for a year and a half.
There wasn't a single SED to be seen at CES 2009 or CES 2010.
Possibly Canon has gotten shy about publicity without being able to deliver, which would be nice, but more likely they're having troubles getting SEDs into production at a price point that's even remotely competitive with LCDs.
I still carry a torch for the promise of FEDs and SEDs (lower power consumption than LCDs, CRT-grade color fidelity and response times (no display blur!
), while being nearly as thin as OLED displays), but I have to admit the prospect of getting my hands on one is looking grim.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30754254</id>
	<title>Re:How Thick is the Display?</title>
	<author>gyrogeerloose</author>
	<datestamp>1263412860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A lot of people still have CRT or back-projection televisions.  Something like this could appeal to those people, because they are already used to their TV having some depth anyway, and you can get them to high def in an affordable way.</p></div><p>Exactly right--I'm one of those people. I still have a 36" CRT TV set and because it's placed diagonally in a corner of the room on top of all my home theater audio gear, depth will not a be a big concern to me when it comes time to replace it with an HDTV. Lower cost certainly will be, however. If this new display design actually amounts to something in the consumer, I could very well be the type of customer you've mentioned.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Plus, CRTs are HEAVY in addition to being bulky.</p></div><p>Boy, you got the heavy part right! It takes two people to move my TV safely. The sucker weighs pretty close to 200 pounds.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of people still have CRT or back-projection televisions .
Something like this could appeal to those people , because they are already used to their TV having some depth anyway , and you can get them to high def in an affordable way.Exactly right--I 'm one of those people .
I still have a 36 " CRT TV set and because it 's placed diagonally in a corner of the room on top of all my home theater audio gear , depth will not a be a big concern to me when it comes time to replace it with an HDTV .
Lower cost certainly will be , however .
If this new display design actually amounts to something in the consumer , I could very well be the type of customer you 've mentioned.Plus , CRTs are HEAVY in addition to being bulky.Boy , you got the heavy part right !
It takes two people to move my TV safely .
The sucker weighs pretty close to 200 pounds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of people still have CRT or back-projection televisions.
Something like this could appeal to those people, because they are already used to their TV having some depth anyway, and you can get them to high def in an affordable way.Exactly right--I'm one of those people.
I still have a 36" CRT TV set and because it's placed diagonally in a corner of the room on top of all my home theater audio gear, depth will not a be a big concern to me when it comes time to replace it with an HDTV.
Lower cost certainly will be, however.
If this new display design actually amounts to something in the consumer, I could very well be the type of customer you've mentioned.Plus, CRTs are HEAVY in addition to being bulky.Boy, you got the heavy part right!
It takes two people to move my TV safely.
The sucker weighs pretty close to 200 pounds.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30758148</id>
	<title>Re:LPD screen or LPD screen?</title>
	<author>neBelcnU</author>
	<datestamp>1263385980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There seriously needs to be a special "+{a lot} Funny" for efforts like yours.</p><p>I'm going to work this into an email of a semi-officious nature: Stay tuned<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.ers for a future story about a financial instutition wanting on the IEEE's TLAv6 board.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There seriously needs to be a special " + { a lot } Funny " for efforts like yours.I 'm going to work this into an email of a semi-officious nature : Stay tuned /.ers for a future story about a financial instutition wanting on the IEEE 's TLAv6 board .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There seriously needs to be a special "+{a lot} Funny" for efforts like yours.I'm going to work this into an email of a semi-officious nature: Stay tuned /.ers for a future story about a financial instutition wanting on the IEEE's TLAv6 board.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30755680</id>
	<title>Re:How Thick is the Display?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263375060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Of all the information I can find, no one is addressing the thickness of the display unit.</p></div><p>Pft, who cares. It consumes less energy and produces better (moving) pictures. That's what counts. The other properties are not as important, if the first two deliver.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of all the information I can find , no one is addressing the thickness of the display unit.Pft , who cares .
It consumes less energy and produces better ( moving ) pictures .
That 's what counts .
The other properties are not as important , if the first two deliver .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of all the information I can find, no one is addressing the thickness of the display unit.Pft, who cares.
It consumes less energy and produces better (moving) pictures.
That's what counts.
The other properties are not as important, if the first two deliver.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30755458</id>
	<title>Re:Argh</title>
	<author>omnichad</author>
	<datestamp>1263374280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bah, why not use huge electromagnets around the laser tube to bend the light beams.  Now you nearly have a CRT television that works with lasers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bah , why not use huge electromagnets around the laser tube to bend the light beams .
Now you nearly have a CRT television that works with lasers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bah, why not use huge electromagnets around the laser tube to bend the light beams.
Now you nearly have a CRT television that works with lasers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752842</id>
	<title>Mechanical Parts?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263407040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ewwwww!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ewwwww !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ewwwww!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750938</id>
	<title>Good one!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263399900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It's not every day you hear about a brand new display technology"</p><p>And to this I say: good one, you funny guy!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It 's not every day you hear about a brand new display technology " And to this I say : good one , you funny guy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It's not every day you hear about a brand new display technology"And to this I say: good one, you funny guy!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30758326</id>
	<title>3D/Stereoscopic Display</title>
	<author>Samah</author>
	<datestamp>1263386640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Screw 2D screens, we should be pouring funding into these technologies:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.aist.go.jp/aist\_e/latest\_research/2006/20060210/20060210.html" title="aist.go.jp">http://www.aist.go.jp/aist\_e/latest\_research/2006/20060210/20060210.html</a> [aist.go.jp] (TRUE 3D)<br>
<a href="http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/10/philips-3d-hdtv/" title="wired.com">http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/10/philips-3d-hdtv/</a> [wired.com] (Stereoscopic w/o glasses)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Screw 2D screens , we should be pouring funding into these technologies : http : //www.aist.go.jp/aist \ _e/latest \ _research/2006/20060210/20060210.html [ aist.go.jp ] ( TRUE 3D ) http : //www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/10/philips-3d-hdtv/ [ wired.com ] ( Stereoscopic w/o glasses )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Screw 2D screens, we should be pouring funding into these technologies:

http://www.aist.go.jp/aist\_e/latest\_research/2006/20060210/20060210.html [aist.go.jp] (TRUE 3D)
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/10/philips-3d-hdtv/ [wired.com] (Stereoscopic w/o glasses)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30753246</id>
	<title>Re:do not want</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263408600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back then LCDs were significantly slower than they are today.  My objection is how that we have displays where all the dots are FIXED in nice rows and columns (no more adjusting convergence, pincushion, height, width, linearity, trapezoid, etc. controls), why go back to something that will inevitably require adjustment?  Especially something that adds mechanical components to the display instead of remaining purely electronic.  Adding moving parts has got to make it less reliable in the long run...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back then LCDs were significantly slower than they are today .
My objection is how that we have displays where all the dots are FIXED in nice rows and columns ( no more adjusting convergence , pincushion , height , width , linearity , trapezoid , etc .
controls ) , why go back to something that will inevitably require adjustment ?
Especially something that adds mechanical components to the display instead of remaining purely electronic .
Adding moving parts has got to make it less reliable in the long run.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back then LCDs were significantly slower than they are today.
My objection is how that we have displays where all the dots are FIXED in nice rows and columns (no more adjusting convergence, pincushion, height, width, linearity, trapezoid, etc.
controls), why go back to something that will inevitably require adjustment?
Especially something that adds mechanical components to the display instead of remaining purely electronic.
Adding moving parts has got to make it less reliable in the long run...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30770678</id>
	<title>Re:How Thick is the Display?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263463380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>5.5 inches</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>5.5 inches</tokentext>
<sentencetext>5.5 inches</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751360</id>
	<title>The screen is not... it's not</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1263401460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Something you can just refresh all at once. It's not a big lump of transistors.</p><p>It's a series of cathode ray tubes!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Something you can just refresh all at once .
It 's not a big lump of transistors.It 's a series of cathode ray tubes !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something you can just refresh all at once.
It's not a big lump of transistors.It's a series of cathode ray tubes!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30753160</id>
	<title>FLEAs Please!</title>
	<author>camperdave</author>
	<datestamp>1263408240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been trying to get people to switch from Three Letter Acronym to the less popular Four Letter Extended Acronym for years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been trying to get people to switch from Three Letter Acronym to the less popular Four Letter Extended Acronym for years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been trying to get people to switch from Three Letter Acronym to the less popular Four Letter Extended Acronym for years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751536</id>
	<title>Re:How Thick is the Display?</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1263402180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Prysm's LPD <b>screens</b></p></div> </blockquote><p>The screen, not the whole system.  This is a projector system.  The question is, and remains, how much separation is required between the projector and the screen?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Prysm 's LPD screens The screen , not the whole system .
This is a projector system .
The question is , and remains , how much separation is required between the projector and the screen ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Prysm's LPD screens The screen, not the whole system.
This is a projector system.
The question is, and remains, how much separation is required between the projector and the screen?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30756674</id>
	<title>Re:Forget LAPD, I'm waiting for FEDs</title>
	<author>EkriirkE</author>
	<datestamp>1263379200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds an awful lot like Plasma</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds an awful lot like Plasma</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds an awful lot like Plasma</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751068</id>
	<title>phosphor burn?</title>
	<author>AmericanGladiator</author>
	<datestamp>1263400440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I didn't see any mention in the article - will it have this horrible weakness that CRTs had?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't see any mention in the article - will it have this horrible weakness that CRTs had ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't see any mention in the article - will it have this horrible weakness that CRTs had?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30754884</id>
	<title>Re:How Thick is the Display?</title>
	<author>theskipper</author>
	<datestamp>1263415200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This article says about 5.5"" thick:</p><p><a href="http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/is-lpd-the-next-lcd/" title="nytimes.com">http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/is-lpd-the-next-lcd/</a> [nytimes.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This article says about 5.5 " " thick : http : //gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/is-lpd-the-next-lcd/ [ nytimes.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article says about 5.5"" thick:http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/is-lpd-the-next-lcd/ [nytimes.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751044</id>
	<title>"Command centers"</title>
	<author>ewg</author>
	<datestamp>1263400380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>About time! I'm sick of the lackluster displays in <em>my</em> command center.</htmltext>
<tokenext>About time !
I 'm sick of the lackluster displays in my command center .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>About time!
I'm sick of the lackluster displays in my command center.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752776</id>
	<title>Re:do not want</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263406860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you may be a little *boggled* at what is going on with these technologies.  I'll explain:</p><p>Yeah, there was a time when people didn't want to go to LCDs because of motion blur.  That was because the refresh rate of LCDs early on were horrible.  The discrete pixels would change so slowly that you would see a blur when you compared to the effective dynamic pixels on a CRT.</p><p>Now, modern LCDs have very high refresh rates and almost no blur.  That's what the OP was referring to.</p><p>Jump forward to LED displays (or plasma displays) where the actual light comes out of the pixel themselves, the refresh rate is instantaneous.  You won't (shouldn't?) see any blur at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you may be a little * boggled * at what is going on with these technologies .
I 'll explain : Yeah , there was a time when people did n't want to go to LCDs because of motion blur .
That was because the refresh rate of LCDs early on were horrible .
The discrete pixels would change so slowly that you would see a blur when you compared to the effective dynamic pixels on a CRT.Now , modern LCDs have very high refresh rates and almost no blur .
That 's what the OP was referring to.Jump forward to LED displays ( or plasma displays ) where the actual light comes out of the pixel themselves , the refresh rate is instantaneous .
You wo n't ( should n't ?
) see any blur at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you may be a little *boggled* at what is going on with these technologies.
I'll explain:Yeah, there was a time when people didn't want to go to LCDs because of motion blur.
That was because the refresh rate of LCDs early on were horrible.
The discrete pixels would change so slowly that you would see a blur when you compared to the effective dynamic pixels on a CRT.Now, modern LCDs have very high refresh rates and almost no blur.
That's what the OP was referring to.Jump forward to LED displays (or plasma displays) where the actual light comes out of the pixel themselves, the refresh rate is instantaneous.
You won't (shouldn't?
) see any blur at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751020</id>
	<title>Command Centers</title>
	<author>Shadowruni</author>
	<datestamp>1263400260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Screw a command center, though whenever I'm evaluating a new display tech that <b>IS</b> the first thing that comes to mind.
<p>
I'm waiting on my transparent screen that displays XXXGA graphics and yet somehow I don't get distracted by everything happening BEHIND the screen.  (
</p><p>
Looks cool on screen but just like Gorilla arms from Minority Report, I think it wouldn't really be practical unless you....)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Screw a command center , though whenever I 'm evaluating a new display tech that IS the first thing that comes to mind .
I 'm waiting on my transparent screen that displays XXXGA graphics and yet somehow I do n't get distracted by everything happening BEHIND the screen .
( Looks cool on screen but just like Gorilla arms from Minority Report , I think it would n't really be practical unless you.... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Screw a command center, though whenever I'm evaluating a new display tech that IS the first thing that comes to mind.
I'm waiting on my transparent screen that displays XXXGA graphics and yet somehow I don't get distracted by everything happening BEHIND the screen.
(

Looks cool on screen but just like Gorilla arms from Minority Report, I think it wouldn't really be practical unless you....)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30753344</id>
	<title>Re:How Thick is the Display?</title>
	<author>default luser</author>
	<datestamp>1263408960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It can be as thin as you want, because the system is done with lasers and mirrors.</p><p>This is just a CRT screen where they have replaced the scanning electron gun with a laser, but you don't realize how revolutionary that is until you think about how this changes packaging: in the CRT you need a big magnet to steer the electron stream, but in this new system you need a tiny mirror (think MEMS), which will really cut-down the package size.  Also, you probably don't need to contain the laser path in a vacuum like the CRT electron beam, so that will make manufacturing cheaper.</p><p>I'm really hoping this will have all the benefits of regular CRTs, only smaller, since SED never got off the ground.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It can be as thin as you want , because the system is done with lasers and mirrors.This is just a CRT screen where they have replaced the scanning electron gun with a laser , but you do n't realize how revolutionary that is until you think about how this changes packaging : in the CRT you need a big magnet to steer the electron stream , but in this new system you need a tiny mirror ( think MEMS ) , which will really cut-down the package size .
Also , you probably do n't need to contain the laser path in a vacuum like the CRT electron beam , so that will make manufacturing cheaper.I 'm really hoping this will have all the benefits of regular CRTs , only smaller , since SED never got off the ground .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It can be as thin as you want, because the system is done with lasers and mirrors.This is just a CRT screen where they have replaced the scanning electron gun with a laser, but you don't realize how revolutionary that is until you think about how this changes packaging: in the CRT you need a big magnet to steer the electron stream, but in this new system you need a tiny mirror (think MEMS), which will really cut-down the package size.
Also, you probably don't need to contain the laser path in a vacuum like the CRT electron beam, so that will make manufacturing cheaper.I'm really hoping this will have all the benefits of regular CRTs, only smaller, since SED never got off the ground.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30754674</id>
	<title>It better...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263414360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...be able to do 3D as good, I just bought my Rouge-Jade Maui Jim Stingray Glasses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...be able to do 3D as good , I just bought my Rouge-Jade Maui Jim Stingray Glasses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...be able to do 3D as good, I just bought my Rouge-Jade Maui Jim Stingray Glasses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751860</id>
	<title>Re:How Thick is the Display?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263403620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Thin" CRTs from a few years back got down to <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2004/11/19/more-thin-crt-televisions-on-the-way/" title="engadget.com" rel="nofollow">16" thick</a> [engadget.com]. Without the need for powerful magnets, you could probably use even thinner displays assuming you had accurate enough galvanometers for addressing edge pixels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Thin " CRTs from a few years back got down to 16 " thick [ engadget.com ] .
Without the need for powerful magnets , you could probably use even thinner displays assuming you had accurate enough galvanometers for addressing edge pixels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Thin" CRTs from a few years back got down to 16" thick [engadget.com].
Without the need for powerful magnets, you could probably use even thinner displays assuming you had accurate enough galvanometers for addressing edge pixels.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751198</id>
	<title>RGS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263400920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As far as televisions are concerned, LCD and LED technology is crap.  Plasma is still better.  Nobody has been able to dethrone the Pioneer Kuros for it's picture quality.  Panasonic is coming close, but I don't know if that's using the Pioneer plasma panels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as televisions are concerned , LCD and LED technology is crap .
Plasma is still better .
Nobody has been able to dethrone the Pioneer Kuros for it 's picture quality .
Panasonic is coming close , but I do n't know if that 's using the Pioneer plasma panels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as televisions are concerned, LCD and LED technology is crap.
Plasma is still better.
Nobody has been able to dethrone the Pioneer Kuros for it's picture quality.
Panasonic is coming close, but I don't know if that's using the Pioneer plasma panels.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751252</id>
	<title>Sounds like an updated CRT</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1263401160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One commenter asked the same question I am asking -- "How thick is this?"  The notion of a beam or beams scanning over a phosphor surface that is treated with cells and filters?  Sounds like a CRT in most respects.  But to have scanning beams, there should be some distance travelled which implies some thickness issues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One commenter asked the same question I am asking -- " How thick is this ?
" The notion of a beam or beams scanning over a phosphor surface that is treated with cells and filters ?
Sounds like a CRT in most respects .
But to have scanning beams , there should be some distance travelled which implies some thickness issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One commenter asked the same question I am asking -- "How thick is this?
"  The notion of a beam or beams scanning over a phosphor surface that is treated with cells and filters?
Sounds like a CRT in most respects.
But to have scanning beams, there should be some distance travelled which implies some thickness issues.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30753432</id>
	<title>Re:How Thick is the Display?</title>
	<author>CityZen</author>
	<datestamp>1263409380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looks like this would compete with Microvision's products.<br>Microvision uses a 2-axis MEMS scanner, so noise is not an issue.<br>Also, why use phosphors if the lasers are already RGB?<br>Must be an issue of efficiency, I gather.<br>I can't see the Prysm product as filling anything but a niche.</p><p>Having a patterned screen would require convergence calibration with the beam.  This could be automated with a camera feedback system, but that adds expense.  This is also why it can't practically use a DMD driver: you can calibrate a swept beam just by changing the timing.  You can't calibrate a DMD in the same way, since the mirrors are just bistable (2 position only).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like this would compete with Microvision 's products.Microvision uses a 2-axis MEMS scanner , so noise is not an issue.Also , why use phosphors if the lasers are already RGB ? Must be an issue of efficiency , I gather.I ca n't see the Prysm product as filling anything but a niche.Having a patterned screen would require convergence calibration with the beam .
This could be automated with a camera feedback system , but that adds expense .
This is also why it ca n't practically use a DMD driver : you can calibrate a swept beam just by changing the timing .
You ca n't calibrate a DMD in the same way , since the mirrors are just bistable ( 2 position only ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like this would compete with Microvision's products.Microvision uses a 2-axis MEMS scanner, so noise is not an issue.Also, why use phosphors if the lasers are already RGB?Must be an issue of efficiency, I gather.I can't see the Prysm product as filling anything but a niche.Having a patterned screen would require convergence calibration with the beam.
This could be automated with a camera feedback system, but that adds expense.
This is also why it can't practically use a DMD driver: you can calibrate a swept beam just by changing the timing.
You can't calibrate a DMD in the same way, since the mirrors are just bistable (2 position only).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30754304</id>
	<title>Re:How Thick is the Display?</title>
	<author>cyberbrian</author>
	<datestamp>1263413040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to: <a href="http://www.prysm.com/about\_lpd.html" title="prysm.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.prysm.com/about\_lpd.html</a> [prysm.com]<br>The technique uses an array of solid state laser diodes.</p><p>So...it sounds like the system <b>will not</b> require a large depth, since there is not a single laser trying to excite all phosphors on the display.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to : http : //www.prysm.com/about \ _lpd.html [ prysm.com ] The technique uses an array of solid state laser diodes.So...it sounds like the system will not require a large depth , since there is not a single laser trying to excite all phosphors on the display .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to: http://www.prysm.com/about\_lpd.html [prysm.com]The technique uses an array of solid state laser diodes.So...it sounds like the system will not require a large depth, since there is not a single laser trying to excite all phosphors on the display.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751578</id>
	<title>So, does it rely on phosphor persistence?</title>
	<author>jcr</author>
	<datestamp>1263402360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like the idea of a laser taking the place of the traditional electron beam, and I can see how it would be far more efficient, but I have to wonder if this is going to bring back the flicker problem that we always had with CRTs.  One of the things I really like about LCDs and LEDs is the fact that the whole raster is lit all the time.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like the idea of a laser taking the place of the traditional electron beam , and I can see how it would be far more efficient , but I have to wonder if this is going to bring back the flicker problem that we always had with CRTs .
One of the things I really like about LCDs and LEDs is the fact that the whole raster is lit all the time.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like the idea of a laser taking the place of the traditional electron beam, and I can see how it would be far more efficient, but I have to wonder if this is going to bring back the flicker problem that we always had with CRTs.
One of the things I really like about LCDs and LEDs is the fact that the whole raster is lit all the time.-jcr</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751010</id>
	<title>Hmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263400200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Do not look at LPD with remaining eye."</p><p>They've been shooting lasers into people's eyes and using them for display for some time and in every single application of the technology, there's the possibility that it can be used to damage the vision of the user if precautions aren't taken. I'm wondering what the small print for these devices will be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Do not look at LPD with remaining eye .
" They 've been shooting lasers into people 's eyes and using them for display for some time and in every single application of the technology , there 's the possibility that it can be used to damage the vision of the user if precautions are n't taken .
I 'm wondering what the small print for these devices will be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Do not look at LPD with remaining eye.
"They've been shooting lasers into people's eyes and using them for display for some time and in every single application of the technology, there's the possibility that it can be used to damage the vision of the user if precautions aren't taken.
I'm wondering what the small print for these devices will be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751850</id>
	<title>It's been done before</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263403620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It won't work, from that patent image, they are simply rehashing the <a href="http://www.osti.gov/bridge/purl.cover.jsp;jsessionid=E9916D487FDEF6995FF3E5C212207511?purl=/761030-VWlu6r/webviewable/" title="osti.gov" rel="nofollow">old laser TV system idea</a> [osti.gov]. That polygon motor has to spin at an incredible speed and has to be extremely stable. Synchronization of the laser and the mechanical components is also difficult. Definitely not going to be a mobile display.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It wo n't work , from that patent image , they are simply rehashing the old laser TV system idea [ osti.gov ] .
That polygon motor has to spin at an incredible speed and has to be extremely stable .
Synchronization of the laser and the mechanical components is also difficult .
Definitely not going to be a mobile display .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It won't work, from that patent image, they are simply rehashing the old laser TV system idea [osti.gov].
That polygon motor has to spin at an incredible speed and has to be extremely stable.
Synchronization of the laser and the mechanical components is also difficult.
Definitely not going to be a mobile display.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751418</id>
	<title>test</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263401760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>test test</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>test test</tokentext>
<sentencetext>test test</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752126</id>
	<title>Re:Ouch</title>
	<author>McWilde</author>
	<datestamp>1263404580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is there a specific type of display that will filter out <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streaking" title="wikipedia.org">naked people</a> [wikipedia.org] running across the pitch?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there a specific type of display that will filter out naked people [ wikipedia.org ] running across the pitch ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there a specific type of display that will filter out naked people [wikipedia.org] running across the pitch?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30753222</id>
	<title>I did that last year for Burning Man</title>
	<author>FryingLizard</author>
	<datestamp>1263408540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>for a Burning Man project, using a spherical screen and a 6-channel sound system;</p><p>http://frickinlaserbeams.com</p><p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5muJOcAd7c</p><p>Various construction vids at<br>http://www.youtube.com/view\_play\_list?p=EAEC79EF55D409D2</p><p>Works great but green's really where it's at. Blue and Red are much, much dimmer and have shorter persistence.</p><p>Alas my shit was not together in time to work properly on the playa... I'll be back this year with the real thing...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>for a Burning Man project , using a spherical screen and a 6-channel sound system ; http : //frickinlaserbeams.comhttp : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = -5muJOcAd7cVarious construction vids athttp : //www.youtube.com/view \ _play \ _list ? p = EAEC79EF55D409D2Works great but green 's really where it 's at .
Blue and Red are much , much dimmer and have shorter persistence.Alas my shit was not together in time to work properly on the playa... I 'll be back this year with the real thing.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for a Burning Man project, using a spherical screen and a 6-channel sound system;http://frickinlaserbeams.comhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5muJOcAd7cVarious construction vids athttp://www.youtube.com/view\_play\_list?p=EAEC79EF55D409D2Works great but green's really where it's at.
Blue and Red are much, much dimmer and have shorter persistence.Alas my shit was not together in time to work properly on the playa... I'll be back this year with the real thing...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751618</id>
	<title>Forget LAPD, I'm waiting for FEDs</title>
	<author>Max(10)</author>
	<datestamp>1263402480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field\_emission\_display" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">FEDs (Field emission displays)</a> [wikipedia.org] are superior to CRTs, LCDs and these new LPDs in every way. FEDs have the same thin 2-4 mm profile as LCDs, but unlike LCDs produce very bright and clear images even in direct sunlight (which is why they were used as HUDs in airplanes) while consuming up to 10 times less power. Sony had a 36" FED prototype that consumed only 14 W, which is 1/8 of what a typical LCD and 1/2 of what an LPD of that size would consume.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FEDs ( Field emission displays ) [ wikipedia.org ] are superior to CRTs , LCDs and these new LPDs in every way .
FEDs have the same thin 2-4 mm profile as LCDs , but unlike LCDs produce very bright and clear images even in direct sunlight ( which is why they were used as HUDs in airplanes ) while consuming up to 10 times less power .
Sony had a 36 " FED prototype that consumed only 14 W , which is 1/8 of what a typical LCD and 1/2 of what an LPD of that size would consume .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FEDs (Field emission displays) [wikipedia.org] are superior to CRTs, LCDs and these new LPDs in every way.
FEDs have the same thin 2-4 mm profile as LCDs, but unlike LCDs produce very bright and clear images even in direct sunlight (which is why they were used as HUDs in airplanes) while consuming up to 10 times less power.
Sony had a 36" FED prototype that consumed only 14 W, which is 1/8 of what a typical LCD and 1/2 of what an LPD of that size would consume.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751136</id>
	<title>Re:How Thick is the Display?</title>
	<author>rodrigoandrade</author>
	<datestamp>1263400740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>FTFA:<br><br>Moreover, Prysm's LPD screens--which the startup plans to manufacture at a plant in Concord, MA--can be built in any size or shape, from square tiles to long, &lt;b&gt;thin ribbons&lt;/b&gt;, meaning they could turn up almost anywhere someone</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTFA : Moreover , Prysm 's LPD screens--which the startup plans to manufacture at a plant in Concord , MA--can be built in any size or shape , from square tiles to long , thin ribbons , meaning they could turn up almost anywhere someone</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTFA:Moreover, Prysm's LPD screens--which the startup plans to manufacture at a plant in Concord, MA--can be built in any size or shape, from square tiles to long, thin ribbons, meaning they could turn up almost anywhere someone</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30753280</id>
	<title>Re:Command Centers</title>
	<author>camperdave</author>
	<datestamp>1263408780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think many people are waiting for transparent displays that show XXX graphics.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think many people are waiting for transparent displays that show XXX graphics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think many people are waiting for transparent displays that show XXX graphics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752634</id>
	<title>Re:do not want</title>
	<author>Jesus\_666</author>
	<datestamp>1263406440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>OTOH, with time LPDs may just mean the return of the affordable TrueColor screen. With current non-CRT displays you need to shell out quite a bit of money if you want a monitor that actually supports 24 bpp.</htmltext>
<tokenext>OTOH , with time LPDs may just mean the return of the affordable TrueColor screen .
With current non-CRT displays you need to shell out quite a bit of money if you want a monitor that actually supports 24 bpp .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OTOH, with time LPDs may just mean the return of the affordable TrueColor screen.
With current non-CRT displays you need to shell out quite a bit of money if you want a monitor that actually supports 24 bpp.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752198</id>
	<title>Re:LPD screen or LPD screen?</title>
	<author>PhilHibbs</author>
	<datestamp>1263404880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's the other LPD?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the other LPD ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the other LPD?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30755014</id>
	<title>Re:do not want</title>
	<author>timeOday</author>
	<datestamp>1263415740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>On the other hand, projection systems excel in the area of SIZE, and size does matter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , projection systems excel in the area of SIZE , and size does matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, projection systems excel in the area of SIZE, and size does matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751326</id>
	<title>Re:How Thick is the Display?</title>
	<author>stevew</author>
	<datestamp>1263401400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well - I designed what would be portion 320 in the diagram, the image modulation system for a scanning LED TV. The first problem was that LEDs were too dim at the time.  The lasers in this system against a phosphor take care of that issue.  The second issue you have is what is called the pin-cushion effect.  As you scan the laser over the surface of the rotating polygon, it will tend to modulate the length of the scanline making the picture look like a pin cushion.  I had a way to fix this in the modulation controller - can't talk about HOW to fix it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-) Just know that is a pretty big problem to overcome.</p><p>Once you have a method to overcome the pin-cushion effect, then you need to have to have a way to align the TVs in production (another REAL headache I didn't come up with a solution for..but then we only got to the prototype stage so didn't have to face that issue.)</p><p>Finally - there is the issue of NOISE.  Rotating mirrors can be REALLY loud.  Our prototype sounded like a jet engine when we spooled up the motors.  The precision optics are also expensive.   The mechanical engineers believed they could build a much quieter mirror assembly - maybe with air bearings.</p><p>So there are a lot of real - practical - tough design problems with this approach.</p><p>Finally - I expect it to be a relatively BIG TV.</p><p>It's a neat technology  - but I don't believe there is any market for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well - I designed what would be portion 320 in the diagram , the image modulation system for a scanning LED TV .
The first problem was that LEDs were too dim at the time .
The lasers in this system against a phosphor take care of that issue .
The second issue you have is what is called the pin-cushion effect .
As you scan the laser over the surface of the rotating polygon , it will tend to modulate the length of the scanline making the picture look like a pin cushion .
I had a way to fix this in the modulation controller - ca n't talk about HOW to fix it ; - ) Just know that is a pretty big problem to overcome.Once you have a method to overcome the pin-cushion effect , then you need to have to have a way to align the TVs in production ( another REAL headache I did n't come up with a solution for..but then we only got to the prototype stage so did n't have to face that issue .
) Finally - there is the issue of NOISE .
Rotating mirrors can be REALLY loud .
Our prototype sounded like a jet engine when we spooled up the motors .
The precision optics are also expensive .
The mechanical engineers believed they could build a much quieter mirror assembly - maybe with air bearings.So there are a lot of real - practical - tough design problems with this approach.Finally - I expect it to be a relatively BIG TV.It 's a neat technology - but I do n't believe there is any market for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well - I designed what would be portion 320 in the diagram, the image modulation system for a scanning LED TV.
The first problem was that LEDs were too dim at the time.
The lasers in this system against a phosphor take care of that issue.
The second issue you have is what is called the pin-cushion effect.
As you scan the laser over the surface of the rotating polygon, it will tend to modulate the length of the scanline making the picture look like a pin cushion.
I had a way to fix this in the modulation controller - can't talk about HOW to fix it ;-) Just know that is a pretty big problem to overcome.Once you have a method to overcome the pin-cushion effect, then you need to have to have a way to align the TVs in production (another REAL headache I didn't come up with a solution for..but then we only got to the prototype stage so didn't have to face that issue.
)Finally - there is the issue of NOISE.
Rotating mirrors can be REALLY loud.
Our prototype sounded like a jet engine when we spooled up the motors.
The precision optics are also expensive.
The mechanical engineers believed they could build a much quieter mirror assembly - maybe with air bearings.So there are a lot of real - practical - tough design problems with this approach.Finally - I expect it to be a relatively BIG TV.It's a neat technology  - but I don't believe there is any market for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752228</id>
	<title>Re:phosphor burn?</title>
	<author>JoeMerchant</author>
	<datestamp>1263404940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Re:phosphor burn?<br> <br>
Depends, if phosphor burn was due to constant electron pummeling and photons are gentler, then maybe not.  I suspect they will have some effect, though - especially if they're achieving high brightness on static high contrast displays.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Re : phosphor burn ?
Depends , if phosphor burn was due to constant electron pummeling and photons are gentler , then maybe not .
I suspect they will have some effect , though - especially if they 're achieving high brightness on static high contrast displays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Re:phosphor burn?
Depends, if phosphor burn was due to constant electron pummeling and photons are gentler, then maybe not.
I suspect they will have some effect, though - especially if they're achieving high brightness on static high contrast displays.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751796</id>
	<title>Finally!</title>
	<author>raphael75</author>
	<datestamp>1263403260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My command center sure could use a display upgrade!</htmltext>
<tokenext>My command center sure could use a display upgrade !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My command center sure could use a display upgrade!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752624</id>
	<title>What about Laser Sparkle?</title>
	<author>mykepredko</author>
	<datestamp>1263406380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These the small dots that appear on a laser image - they are quite noticeable on laser based pico-projectors.</p><p>myke</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These the small dots that appear on a laser image - they are quite noticeable on laser based pico-projectors.myke</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These the small dots that appear on a laser image - they are quite noticeable on laser based pico-projectors.myke</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752728</id>
	<title>Re:do not want</title>
	<author>modecx</author>
	<datestamp>1263406740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>we can get back the delay effect with processing, but you can't eliminate phosphor delays when you've got phosphors.</i></p><p>Bull. It really depends on the phosphors they decide to use, but there are R/G/B phosphors with decay times which handily beat even the fastest production LCD response times. I'm not sure why they're messing around with phosphors and shit though--a backlit RGB laser display system would be uber-cool.</p><p>As someone who works with color (I expect an RGB raster laser system can have excellent color gamut), if they can make it happen at a halfway reasonable price, I'll jump ship yesterday. I don't care how thick it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we can get back the delay effect with processing , but you ca n't eliminate phosphor delays when you 've got phosphors.Bull .
It really depends on the phosphors they decide to use , but there are R/G/B phosphors with decay times which handily beat even the fastest production LCD response times .
I 'm not sure why they 're messing around with phosphors and shit though--a backlit RGB laser display system would be uber-cool.As someone who works with color ( I expect an RGB raster laser system can have excellent color gamut ) , if they can make it happen at a halfway reasonable price , I 'll jump ship yesterday .
I do n't care how thick it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we can get back the delay effect with processing, but you can't eliminate phosphor delays when you've got phosphors.Bull.
It really depends on the phosphors they decide to use, but there are R/G/B phosphors with decay times which handily beat even the fastest production LCD response times.
I'm not sure why they're messing around with phosphors and shit though--a backlit RGB laser display system would be uber-cool.As someone who works with color (I expect an RGB raster laser system can have excellent color gamut), if they can make it happen at a halfway reasonable price, I'll jump ship yesterday.
I don't care how thick it is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752836</id>
	<title>Re:LPD screen or LPD screen?</title>
	<author>Junior J. Junior III</author>
	<datestamp>1263407040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>If it is new, it is unfortunate not only to reuse an acronym, but reusing one in the same domain.</p></div><p>There are only 17,576 three letter acronyms. We've been warning people for years of the need to upgrade to TLAv6, which allows for a wider range of three letter acronyms, including punctuation and numbers as well as unicode support. But many major buzzword providers have refused to upgrade. The last unique TLAs will be depleted within 18 months in our field. Thanks to AAT (Acronym Address Translation), there are already far more TLAs than there are available spaces -- we've been using CIAR (Classless Inter-Acronym Routing) to separate namespaces based on subject matter and field, but it's only a matter of time before even that fails.</p></div><p>lol</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it is new , it is unfortunate not only to reuse an acronym , but reusing one in the same domain.There are only 17,576 three letter acronyms .
We 've been warning people for years of the need to upgrade to TLAv6 , which allows for a wider range of three letter acronyms , including punctuation and numbers as well as unicode support .
But many major buzzword providers have refused to upgrade .
The last unique TLAs will be depleted within 18 months in our field .
Thanks to AAT ( Acronym Address Translation ) , there are already far more TLAs than there are available spaces -- we 've been using CIAR ( Classless Inter-Acronym Routing ) to separate namespaces based on subject matter and field , but it 's only a matter of time before even that fails.lol</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it is new, it is unfortunate not only to reuse an acronym, but reusing one in the same domain.There are only 17,576 three letter acronyms.
We've been warning people for years of the need to upgrade to TLAv6, which allows for a wider range of three letter acronyms, including punctuation and numbers as well as unicode support.
But many major buzzword providers have refused to upgrade.
The last unique TLAs will be depleted within 18 months in our field.
Thanks to AAT (Acronym Address Translation), there are already far more TLAs than there are available spaces -- we've been using CIAR (Classless Inter-Acronym Routing) to separate namespaces based on subject matter and field, but it's only a matter of time before even that fails.lol
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30753814</id>
	<title>Re:LPD screen or LPD screen?</title>
	<author>rleibman</author>
	<datestamp>1263411060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>TLAv6 is too difficult, just simply use ETLA (Extended Three Letter Acronym), giving you 456,976 acronyms, that should be enough for a while.</htmltext>
<tokenext>TLAv6 is too difficult , just simply use ETLA ( Extended Three Letter Acronym ) , giving you 456,976 acronyms , that should be enough for a while .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TLAv6 is too difficult, just simply use ETLA (Extended Three Letter Acronym), giving you 456,976 acronyms, that should be enough for a while.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30753402</id>
	<title>Yawn, wake me in 10 years</title>
	<author>scatterbrained</author>
	<datestamp>1263409260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yet another display technology being touted.  Like FED's, OLEDs, microdisplays, DLP, etc.  All are ok technology, but have been massively overhyped and take way longer than their proponents say to reach mass market.  Evolution rules the display market, and I don't see LCD being dethroned any time soon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet another display technology being touted .
Like FED 's , OLEDs , microdisplays , DLP , etc .
All are ok technology , but have been massively overhyped and take way longer than their proponents say to reach mass market .
Evolution rules the display market , and I do n't see LCD being dethroned any time soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet another display technology being touted.
Like FED's, OLEDs, microdisplays, DLP, etc.
All are ok technology, but have been massively overhyped and take way longer than their proponents say to reach mass market.
Evolution rules the display market, and I don't see LCD being dethroned any time soon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752148</id>
	<title>Re:Similar idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263404700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since the new buzzword is Unobtainium, maybe you should try that instead of electrons.</p><p>Not only will it be hipper and cooler, but the acronym will be so much better!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since the new buzzword is Unobtainium , maybe you should try that instead of electrons.Not only will it be hipper and cooler , but the acronym will be so much better !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since the new buzzword is Unobtainium, maybe you should try that instead of electrons.Not only will it be hipper and cooler, but the acronym will be so much better!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30756268</id>
	<title>Re:How Thick is the Display?</title>
	<author>aztracker1</author>
	<datestamp>1263377460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This sounds to me a lot like DLP, but with "friggin lasers".  I think that for larger displays, that DLP is probably a better, and less costly option.  I'm actually upset that for larger screens DLP's market share has actually shrunk, as it is a really good display technology.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds to me a lot like DLP , but with " friggin lasers " .
I think that for larger displays , that DLP is probably a better , and less costly option .
I 'm actually upset that for larger screens DLP 's market share has actually shrunk , as it is a really good display technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds to me a lot like DLP, but with "friggin lasers".
I think that for larger displays, that DLP is probably a better, and less costly option.
I'm actually upset that for larger screens DLP's market share has actually shrunk, as it is a really good display technology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30757376</id>
	<title>Maybe light gun games will return</title>
	<author>IronChef</author>
	<datestamp>1263382440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Light gun games that relied on a the scan line in a CRT were a lot of fun. The new guns that work with thin panel TVs do not seem to be as accurate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Light gun games that relied on a the scan line in a CRT were a lot of fun .
The new guns that work with thin panel TVs do not seem to be as accurate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Light gun games that relied on a the scan line in a CRT were a lot of fun.
The new guns that work with thin panel TVs do not seem to be as accurate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750906</id>
	<title>LPD screen or LPD screen?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263399780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So is this a new technology or is this the same as the LPD screens you can buy today?</p><p>If it is new, it is unfortunate not only to reuse an acronym, but reusing one in the same domain.</p><p>If it the same, what is the news?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So is this a new technology or is this the same as the LPD screens you can buy today ? If it is new , it is unfortunate not only to reuse an acronym , but reusing one in the same domain.If it the same , what is the news ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So is this a new technology or is this the same as the LPD screens you can buy today?If it is new, it is unfortunate not only to reuse an acronym, but reusing one in the same domain.If it the same, what is the news?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752402</id>
	<title>Re:Argh</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1263405540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I had a similar idea, only instead of a scanning mirror, I was going to use chunks of neutronium to bend the light beams. I've had a little trouble sourcing the materials, though...</p></div><p>I had a similar idea for a practical application of Steve Jobs' reality distortion field but when I got close to a solution I encountered painful spaghettification and had to abandon my research.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had a similar idea , only instead of a scanning mirror , I was going to use chunks of neutronium to bend the light beams .
I 've had a little trouble sourcing the materials , though...I had a similar idea for a practical application of Steve Jobs ' reality distortion field but when I got close to a solution I encountered painful spaghettification and had to abandon my research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had a similar idea, only instead of a scanning mirror, I was going to use chunks of neutronium to bend the light beams.
I've had a little trouble sourcing the materials, though...I had a similar idea for a practical application of Steve Jobs' reality distortion field but when I got close to a solution I encountered painful spaghettification and had to abandon my research.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30771630</id>
	<title>Re:How Thick is the Display?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263466800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>5.5 inches</p><p>Source:  http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/is-lpd-the-next-lcd/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>5.5 inchesSource : http : //gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/is-lpd-the-next-lcd/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>5.5 inchesSource:  http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/is-lpd-the-next-lcd/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30757772</id>
	<title>Re:How Thick is the Display?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263384300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LPD Sounds like an old fashioned CRT design with lasers<br>substituting the<br>Moving ultra high voltage gamma rays that stimulate rows of Phophorus<br>with<br>Moving Low voltage Lasers that stimulate rows of Phophorus</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LPD Sounds like an old fashioned CRT design with laserssubstituting theMoving ultra high voltage gamma rays that stimulate rows of PhophoruswithMoving Low voltage Lasers that stimulate rows of Phophorus</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LPD Sounds like an old fashioned CRT design with laserssubstituting theMoving ultra high voltage gamma rays that stimulate rows of PhophoruswithMoving Low voltage Lasers that stimulate rows of Phophorus</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752688</id>
	<title>Re:do not want</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263406560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just to clarify LED type displays in this context is not the same as Samsungs LED TV where the lighting is done with LEDs instead of CCFLs. It's LED as in (AM)OLED where each pixel is effectively a single light.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just to clarify LED type displays in this context is not the same as Samsungs LED TV where the lighting is done with LEDs instead of CCFLs .
It 's LED as in ( AM ) OLED where each pixel is effectively a single light .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just to clarify LED type displays in this context is not the same as Samsungs LED TV where the lighting is done with LEDs instead of CCFLs.
It's LED as in (AM)OLED where each pixel is effectively a single light.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751952</id>
	<title>in other news...</title>
	<author>COMON$</author>
	<datestamp>1263403980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wait till they add the feature of an ultra cost efficient mono-color option.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait till they add the feature of an ultra cost efficient mono-color option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait till they add the feature of an ultra cost efficient mono-color option.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30755630</id>
	<title>Re:phosphor burn?</title>
	<author>ChrisMaple</author>
	<datestamp>1263374880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>50 years ago, before CRT glass was greatly improved, TVs had a separate sheet of glass in front of the CRT to protect the CRT from impacts. After a number of years, if you took the glass sheet off, you could see where it had turned grey from the impact of xrays from the CRT.</htmltext>
<tokenext>50 years ago , before CRT glass was greatly improved , TVs had a separate sheet of glass in front of the CRT to protect the CRT from impacts .
After a number of years , if you took the glass sheet off , you could see where it had turned grey from the impact of xrays from the CRT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>50 years ago, before CRT glass was greatly improved, TVs had a separate sheet of glass in front of the CRT to protect the CRT from impacts.
After a number of years, if you took the glass sheet off, you could see where it had turned grey from the impact of xrays from the CRT.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752650</id>
	<title>Re:Argh</title>
	<author>Technomonics</author>
	<datestamp>1263406440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why not use Unobtanium?  Sure, it is more expensive right now but I have assurances we have located a tremendous cache of this on another planet.  We should be able to mine it once we get rid of the pesky vegetation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not use Unobtanium ?
Sure , it is more expensive right now but I have assurances we have located a tremendous cache of this on another planet .
We should be able to mine it once we get rid of the pesky vegetation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not use Unobtanium?
Sure, it is more expensive right now but I have assurances we have located a tremendous cache of this on another planet.
We should be able to mine it once we get rid of the pesky vegetation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751888</id>
	<title>Re:Argh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263403740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't worry I have a time-machine that can fetch all your materials from the future.<br>The problem I have yet to solve is it needs 20 years to travel 631 138 519 seconds into the future...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't worry I have a time-machine that can fetch all your materials from the future.The problem I have yet to solve is it needs 20 years to travel 631 138 519 seconds into the future.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't worry I have a time-machine that can fetch all your materials from the future.The problem I have yet to solve is it needs 20 years to travel 631 138 519 seconds into the future...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750964</id>
	<title>thickness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263400020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Probably wont get much thinner than 5"-6" but some of us don't care much about depth.  All else being equal, if it's price is lower and it uses 1/4 the electricity, I'm interested.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably wont get much thinner than 5 " -6 " but some of us do n't care much about depth .
All else being equal , if it 's price is lower and it uses 1/4 the electricity , I 'm interested .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably wont get much thinner than 5"-6" but some of us don't care much about depth.
All else being equal, if it's price is lower and it uses 1/4 the electricity, I'm interested.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30760326</id>
	<title>HZ and LCD</title>
	<author>bussdriver</author>
	<datestamp>1263399240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its STILL LCD and blurs. What they do is fake a higher rate by using a strobe to cut down on the blur.  Also, I've seen some of the LCDs tear during playback which is not LCD but the electronics causing the problem -- these were cheaper and likely on display to help the sales people fool more customers into how bad 60hz is.</p><p>My 30" LCD computer screen is beyond HD at 60hz progressive. It blurs a bit and I got used to it-- its so minor from the 75Hz CRTs I used to have that I only initially noticed.  I don't play enough games to notice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its STILL LCD and blurs .
What they do is fake a higher rate by using a strobe to cut down on the blur .
Also , I 've seen some of the LCDs tear during playback which is not LCD but the electronics causing the problem -- these were cheaper and likely on display to help the sales people fool more customers into how bad 60hz is.My 30 " LCD computer screen is beyond HD at 60hz progressive .
It blurs a bit and I got used to it-- its so minor from the 75Hz CRTs I used to have that I only initially noticed .
I do n't play enough games to notice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its STILL LCD and blurs.
What they do is fake a higher rate by using a strobe to cut down on the blur.
Also, I've seen some of the LCDs tear during playback which is not LCD but the electronics causing the problem -- these were cheaper and likely on display to help the sales people fool more customers into how bad 60hz is.My 30" LCD computer screen is beyond HD at 60hz progressive.
It blurs a bit and I got used to it-- its so minor from the 75Hz CRTs I used to have that I only initially noticed.
I don't play enough games to notice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751444</id>
	<title>Re:LPD screen or LPD screen?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263401820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If it is new, it is unfortunate not only to reuse an acronym, but reusing one in the same domain.</p></div><p>There are only 17,576 three letter acronyms. We've been warning people for years of the need to upgrade to TLAv6, which allows for a wider range of three letter acronyms, including punctuation and numbers as well as unicode support. But many major buzzword providers have refused to upgrade. The last unique TLAs will be depleted within 18 months in our field. Thanks to AAT (Acronym Address Translation), there are already far more TLAs than there are available spaces -- we've been using CIAR (Classless Inter-Acronym Routing) to separate namespaces based on subject matter and field, but it's only a matter of time before even that fails.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it is new , it is unfortunate not only to reuse an acronym , but reusing one in the same domain.There are only 17,576 three letter acronyms .
We 've been warning people for years of the need to upgrade to TLAv6 , which allows for a wider range of three letter acronyms , including punctuation and numbers as well as unicode support .
But many major buzzword providers have refused to upgrade .
The last unique TLAs will be depleted within 18 months in our field .
Thanks to AAT ( Acronym Address Translation ) , there are already far more TLAs than there are available spaces -- we 've been using CIAR ( Classless Inter-Acronym Routing ) to separate namespaces based on subject matter and field , but it 's only a matter of time before even that fails .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it is new, it is unfortunate not only to reuse an acronym, but reusing one in the same domain.There are only 17,576 three letter acronyms.
We've been warning people for years of the need to upgrade to TLAv6, which allows for a wider range of three letter acronyms, including punctuation and numbers as well as unicode support.
But many major buzzword providers have refused to upgrade.
The last unique TLAs will be depleted within 18 months in our field.
Thanks to AAT (Acronym Address Translation), there are already far more TLAs than there are available spaces -- we've been using CIAR (Classless Inter-Acronym Routing) to separate namespaces based on subject matter and field, but it's only a matter of time before even that fails.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30753328</id>
	<title>Re:Similar idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263408900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How feckless of you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How feckless of you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How feckless of you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750978</id>
	<title>Re:How Thick is the Display?</title>
	<author>mea37</author>
	<datestamp>1263400080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At the end of TFA, they claim that conceptually it would work for a laptop display; so it must be pretty thin.  The reason to target big displays before worrying about home TV's seems to be that the cost of manufacture is less an issue there.  Until they can do relatively cheap mass-production, they won't be able to address the TV market.</p><p>Also, the headline notwithstanding, this may face tough competition in the TV market from advances in LED-type displays.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At the end of TFA , they claim that conceptually it would work for a laptop display ; so it must be pretty thin .
The reason to target big displays before worrying about home TV 's seems to be that the cost of manufacture is less an issue there .
Until they can do relatively cheap mass-production , they wo n't be able to address the TV market.Also , the headline notwithstanding , this may face tough competition in the TV market from advances in LED-type displays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the end of TFA, they claim that conceptually it would work for a laptop display; so it must be pretty thin.
The reason to target big displays before worrying about home TV's seems to be that the cost of manufacture is less an issue there.
Until they can do relatively cheap mass-production, they won't be able to address the TV market.Also, the headline notwithstanding, this may face tough competition in the TV market from advances in LED-type displays.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750954</id>
	<title>do not want</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1263399960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>guaranteed to be thicker than LED <em>or</em> LCD, and with phosphor delay; I want LED so that I can have [effectively] instant transitions. we can get back the delay effect with processing, but you can't eliminate phosphor delays when you've got phosphors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>guaranteed to be thicker than LED or LCD , and with phosphor delay ; I want LED so that I can have [ effectively ] instant transitions .
we can get back the delay effect with processing , but you ca n't eliminate phosphor delays when you 've got phosphors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>guaranteed to be thicker than LED or LCD, and with phosphor delay; I want LED so that I can have [effectively] instant transitions.
we can get back the delay effect with processing, but you can't eliminate phosphor delays when you've got phosphors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30753994</id>
	<title>Re:Argh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263411780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can do it a lot more easily if you use a beam of electrons that are electromagnetically focused on the phosphor lines on the screen.  I tried to file a patent last year, but they kept telling me there was some prior art I had somehow missed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can do it a lot more easily if you use a beam of electrons that are electromagnetically focused on the phosphor lines on the screen .
I tried to file a patent last year , but they kept telling me there was some prior art I had somehow missed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can do it a lot more easily if you use a beam of electrons that are electromagnetically focused on the phosphor lines on the screen.
I tried to file a patent last year, but they kept telling me there was some prior art I had somehow missed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30753416</id>
	<title>Re:LPD screen or LPD screen?</title>
	<author>tempest69</author>
	<datestamp>1263409320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thankfully I'm in biology where UDP can't be confused with computer TLA's<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thankfully I 'm in biology where UDP ca n't be confused with computer TLA 's ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thankfully I'm in biology where UDP can't be confused with computer TLA's ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751770</id>
	<title>Re:do not want</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1263403140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WTF... there was a time when people didn't want to move to LCD because of motion blur issues, problems that CRTs, a phosphor-based technology, didn't have.  Now you're saying the exact opposite is the case?  *boggle*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WTF... there was a time when people did n't want to move to LCD because of motion blur issues , problems that CRTs , a phosphor-based technology , did n't have .
Now you 're saying the exact opposite is the case ?
* boggle *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTF... there was a time when people didn't want to move to LCD because of motion blur issues, problems that CRTs, a phosphor-based technology, didn't have.
Now you're saying the exact opposite is the case?
*boggle*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751212</id>
	<title>Ouch</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263400980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lasers+moving mirror == great reliability!  Have a feeling these are going to make DLP or LCD lamp replacement look downright economical.  Still prefer Plasma, personally, but the LED/LCD my SO's dad bought isn't horrible.  Even at 240Hz, I did still notice some streaking, though (watching a football game).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lasers + moving mirror = = great reliability !
Have a feeling these are going to make DLP or LCD lamp replacement look downright economical .
Still prefer Plasma , personally , but the LED/LCD my SO 's dad bought is n't horrible .
Even at 240Hz , I did still notice some streaking , though ( watching a football game ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lasers+moving mirror == great reliability!
Have a feeling these are going to make DLP or LCD lamp replacement look downright economical.
Still prefer Plasma, personally, but the LED/LCD my SO's dad bought isn't horrible.
Even at 240Hz, I did still notice some streaking, though (watching a football game).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751810</id>
	<title>Re:Argh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263403320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I had a similar idea, only instead of a scanning mirror, I was going to use chunks of neutronium to bend the light beams. I've had a little trouble sourcing the materials, though..."</p><p>That's only a small part of your problem.  Once you get the materials and have the product ready for market, I'm not sure people will be willing to pay 1000x the cost of the product in "shipping and handling".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I had a similar idea , only instead of a scanning mirror , I was going to use chunks of neutronium to bend the light beams .
I 've had a little trouble sourcing the materials , though... " That 's only a small part of your problem .
Once you get the materials and have the product ready for market , I 'm not sure people will be willing to pay 1000x the cost of the product in " shipping and handling " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I had a similar idea, only instead of a scanning mirror, I was going to use chunks of neutronium to bend the light beams.
I've had a little trouble sourcing the materials, though..."That's only a small part of your problem.
Once you get the materials and have the product ready for market, I'm not sure people will be willing to pay 1000x the cost of the product in "shipping and handling".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751170</id>
	<title>Re:LPD screen or LPD screen?</title>
	<author>rsborg</author>
	<datestamp>1263400860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So is this a new technology or is this the same as the LPD screens you can buy today?</p></div></blockquote><p>Perhaps you meant <a href="http://www.dlp.com/" title="dlp.com">DLP</a> [dlp.com]? Not the same as LPD but agreed, it will be confusing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So is this a new technology or is this the same as the LPD screens you can buy today ? Perhaps you meant DLP [ dlp.com ] ?
Not the same as LPD but agreed , it will be confusing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So is this a new technology or is this the same as the LPD screens you can buy today?Perhaps you meant DLP [dlp.com]?
Not the same as LPD but agreed, it will be confusing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751998</id>
	<title>Re:phosphor burn?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263404160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Phosphor burn is massively overstated. I'm still using the same 19" Hitachi I got in 1997 as my regular computer monitor and there's zero evidence of phosphor burn. It's also still bright enough to use under bright fluorescent lighting (and more than bright enough to use in a dungeon environment).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Phosphor burn is massively overstated .
I 'm still using the same 19 " Hitachi I got in 1997 as my regular computer monitor and there 's zero evidence of phosphor burn .
It 's also still bright enough to use under bright fluorescent lighting ( and more than bright enough to use in a dungeon environment ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Phosphor burn is massively overstated.
I'm still using the same 19" Hitachi I got in 1997 as my regular computer monitor and there's zero evidence of phosphor burn.
It's also still bright enough to use under bright fluorescent lighting (and more than bright enough to use in a dungeon environment).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30753906</id>
	<title>Re:Ouch</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263411420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Even at 240Hz, I did still notice some streaking, though (watching a football game).</p></div><p>You always get a few exhibitionists at those football games....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even at 240Hz , I did still notice some streaking , though ( watching a football game ) .You always get a few exhibitionists at those football games... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even at 240Hz, I did still notice some streaking, though (watching a football game).You always get a few exhibitionists at those football games....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752136</id>
	<title>Re:LPD screen or LPD screen?</title>
	<author>TheVelvetFlamebait</author>
	<datestamp>1263404640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry, but CIAR? When trying to parse this, all I got was Central Intelligence Agency and a 1 character buffer overflow.</p><p>Clearly I need an upgrade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , but CIAR ?
When trying to parse this , all I got was Central Intelligence Agency and a 1 character buffer overflow.Clearly I need an upgrade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, but CIAR?
When trying to parse this, all I got was Central Intelligence Agency and a 1 character buffer overflow.Clearly I need an upgrade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751268</id>
	<title>Re:How Thick is the Display?</title>
	<author>Funnnny</author>
	<datestamp>1263401160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>According to the paragraph, "We can make it as big as you can imagine", I think it'll bigger than CRTs</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the paragraph , " We can make it as big as you can imagine " , I think it 'll bigger than CRTs</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the paragraph, "We can make it as big as you can imagine", I think it'll bigger than CRTs</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752180</id>
	<title>Re:do not want</title>
	<author>JoeMerchant</author>
	<datestamp>1263404760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
As a company, they're targeting the deep pocket markets (big displays - really big from the sound of the article).  I don't read anything particularly expensive in their description, maybe the high power laser (or the fact that they're manufacturing in Massachusetts), for now they're touting low energy to operate and component longevity as their value-adds.<br> <br>

In other words, the investors don't give a damn about selling you an inexpensive display for your peasant self.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a company , they 're targeting the deep pocket markets ( big displays - really big from the sound of the article ) .
I do n't read anything particularly expensive in their description , maybe the high power laser ( or the fact that they 're manufacturing in Massachusetts ) , for now they 're touting low energy to operate and component longevity as their value-adds .
In other words , the investors do n't give a damn about selling you an inexpensive display for your peasant self .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
As a company, they're targeting the deep pocket markets (big displays - really big from the sound of the article).
I don't read anything particularly expensive in their description, maybe the high power laser (or the fact that they're manufacturing in Massachusetts), for now they're touting low energy to operate and component longevity as their value-adds.
In other words, the investors don't give a damn about selling you an inexpensive display for your peasant self.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751568</id>
	<title>Laser + Phospher = burn in?</title>
	<author>furby076</author>
	<datestamp>1263402360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Doesn't PLASMA tv use lasers and phospher and this causes burn-ins?  What about this? I don't care how good the image is, if burn-in occurs I don't want it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't PLASMA tv use lasers and phospher and this causes burn-ins ?
What about this ?
I do n't care how good the image is , if burn-in occurs I do n't want it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't PLASMA tv use lasers and phospher and this causes burn-ins?
What about this?
I don't care how good the image is, if burn-in occurs I don't want it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751086</id>
	<title>Mitsubishi LaserVue</title>
	<author>ArhcAngel</author>
	<datestamp>1263400500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is this better than <a href="http://www.mitsubishi-tv.com/product/L65A90" title="mitsubishi-tv.com">Mitsubishi's LaserVue</a> [mitsubishi-tv.com] technology? It's basically a laser DLP to phosphor opposed to whatever material is used by Mitsubishi for a standard DLP screen. It even looks like the LaserVue uses less power than this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this better than Mitsubishi 's LaserVue [ mitsubishi-tv.com ] technology ?
It 's basically a laser DLP to phosphor opposed to whatever material is used by Mitsubishi for a standard DLP screen .
It even looks like the LaserVue uses less power than this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this better than Mitsubishi's LaserVue [mitsubishi-tv.com] technology?
It's basically a laser DLP to phosphor opposed to whatever material is used by Mitsubishi for a standard DLP screen.
It even looks like the LaserVue uses less power than this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30754566</id>
	<title>Sharks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263414000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where's the comments about sharks with TV's on their heads?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where 's the comments about sharks with TV 's on their heads ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where's the comments about sharks with TV's on their heads?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751666</id>
	<title>Phosphors 4tw</title>
	<author>Dr\_Barnowl</author>
	<datestamp>1263402720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I still have a CRT television - backlit displays are rubbish for my preferred viewing habits, which tend to involve lots of darkness viz ; sci-fi, fantasy, etc. Any genre where significant amounts of screen time is  spent in the dark just aren't as good on a display which can't achieve 100\% blackness (in a darkened viewing room).</p><p>The colour response of CRTs is better also.</p><p>For picture quality this is on a direct footing with OLED displays, which are going to be using the same optically-excited phosphor compounds (as mentioned in the article). Field-effect displays should be able to use the tried and tested CRT phosphors as they use electron excitation. All of these should be able to display "absolute" black, unlike an LCD.</p><p>The downside to OLED and FED is the complexity of manufacturing the screen which requires a tiny individual element for each pixel. LPD sounds like it has a simplicity advantage in manufacturing terms. If the laser works, it works, no dead pixels. It won't need a shadow mask or aperture grill, it won't need a vacuum so a reasonably sized display won't need 10s of kilos of high-lead glass, it'll never need degaussing, it won't need a multi-thousand volt transformer inside it.</p><p>It sounds like it should soundly beat out all of the existing displays in terms of manufacturing cost, have a picture quality better than LCDs, a colour response similar to CRT, refresh rates of at least 100Hz for those of us who hate display flicker, maybe higher for those of us who want 3D (or maybe make the resolution higher and put a polarizing filter on it), and consume 25\% of the power of LCDs. The only downside is that it might be somewhat deeper than the flatter displays.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I still have a CRT television - backlit displays are rubbish for my preferred viewing habits , which tend to involve lots of darkness viz ; sci-fi , fantasy , etc .
Any genre where significant amounts of screen time is spent in the dark just are n't as good on a display which ca n't achieve 100 \ % blackness ( in a darkened viewing room ) .The colour response of CRTs is better also.For picture quality this is on a direct footing with OLED displays , which are going to be using the same optically-excited phosphor compounds ( as mentioned in the article ) .
Field-effect displays should be able to use the tried and tested CRT phosphors as they use electron excitation .
All of these should be able to display " absolute " black , unlike an LCD.The downside to OLED and FED is the complexity of manufacturing the screen which requires a tiny individual element for each pixel .
LPD sounds like it has a simplicity advantage in manufacturing terms .
If the laser works , it works , no dead pixels .
It wo n't need a shadow mask or aperture grill , it wo n't need a vacuum so a reasonably sized display wo n't need 10s of kilos of high-lead glass , it 'll never need degaussing , it wo n't need a multi-thousand volt transformer inside it.It sounds like it should soundly beat out all of the existing displays in terms of manufacturing cost , have a picture quality better than LCDs , a colour response similar to CRT , refresh rates of at least 100Hz for those of us who hate display flicker , maybe higher for those of us who want 3D ( or maybe make the resolution higher and put a polarizing filter on it ) , and consume 25 \ % of the power of LCDs .
The only downside is that it might be somewhat deeper than the flatter displays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still have a CRT television - backlit displays are rubbish for my preferred viewing habits, which tend to involve lots of darkness viz ; sci-fi, fantasy, etc.
Any genre where significant amounts of screen time is  spent in the dark just aren't as good on a display which can't achieve 100\% blackness (in a darkened viewing room).The colour response of CRTs is better also.For picture quality this is on a direct footing with OLED displays, which are going to be using the same optically-excited phosphor compounds (as mentioned in the article).
Field-effect displays should be able to use the tried and tested CRT phosphors as they use electron excitation.
All of these should be able to display "absolute" black, unlike an LCD.The downside to OLED and FED is the complexity of manufacturing the screen which requires a tiny individual element for each pixel.
LPD sounds like it has a simplicity advantage in manufacturing terms.
If the laser works, it works, no dead pixels.
It won't need a shadow mask or aperture grill, it won't need a vacuum so a reasonably sized display won't need 10s of kilos of high-lead glass, it'll never need degaussing, it won't need a multi-thousand volt transformer inside it.It sounds like it should soundly beat out all of the existing displays in terms of manufacturing cost, have a picture quality better than LCDs, a colour response similar to CRT, refresh rates of at least 100Hz for those of us who hate display flicker, maybe higher for those of us who want 3D (or maybe make the resolution higher and put a polarizing filter on it), and consume 25\% of the power of LCDs.
The only downside is that it might be somewhat deeper than the flatter displays.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751940</id>
	<title>DIY LPD using blu-ray lasers</title>
	<author>marciot</author>
	<datestamp>1263403920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm actually in the process of hacking together something similar with a 405nm violet laser pointer, a sheet of glow-in-the-dark material, and a moving mirror. The laser pointer leaves a bright trace on the phosphorescent sheet. My notion was to build a small robot that could write glowing messages as it moved across the glow in the dark sheet.</p><p>Anyhow, these guys are apparently working on a full-color version. I think what makes this possible now is the cheap availability of blu-ray laser diodes with sufficiently high wavelength to cause materials to phosphoresce. Red or green lasers do not work (I've tried). These guys were probably waiting for laser technology to catch up to them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm actually in the process of hacking together something similar with a 405nm violet laser pointer , a sheet of glow-in-the-dark material , and a moving mirror .
The laser pointer leaves a bright trace on the phosphorescent sheet .
My notion was to build a small robot that could write glowing messages as it moved across the glow in the dark sheet.Anyhow , these guys are apparently working on a full-color version .
I think what makes this possible now is the cheap availability of blu-ray laser diodes with sufficiently high wavelength to cause materials to phosphoresce .
Red or green lasers do not work ( I 've tried ) .
These guys were probably waiting for laser technology to catch up to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm actually in the process of hacking together something similar with a 405nm violet laser pointer, a sheet of glow-in-the-dark material, and a moving mirror.
The laser pointer leaves a bright trace on the phosphorescent sheet.
My notion was to build a small robot that could write glowing messages as it moved across the glow in the dark sheet.Anyhow, these guys are apparently working on a full-color version.
I think what makes this possible now is the cheap availability of blu-ray laser diodes with sufficiently high wavelength to cause materials to phosphoresce.
Red or green lasers do not work (I've tried).
These guys were probably waiting for laser technology to catch up to them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751744</id>
	<title>eye damage?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263403020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How powerful are the lasers being used?  If the phosphor wears thin over time, would you have laser radiation burning out your eyes.  Perhaps the technology will bring some truth to that old parental adage about sitting in front of the tv too long.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How powerful are the lasers being used ?
If the phosphor wears thin over time , would you have laser radiation burning out your eyes .
Perhaps the technology will bring some truth to that old parental adage about sitting in front of the tv too long .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How powerful are the lasers being used?
If the phosphor wears thin over time, would you have laser radiation burning out your eyes.
Perhaps the technology will bring some truth to that old parental adage about sitting in front of the tv too long.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750822</id>
	<title>How Thick is the Display?</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1263399360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And they should be easier to manufacture too, since they don't have a backplane of transistors like LCD screens: the image is generated by a laser beam that sweeps across phosphor stripes under the control of a scanning mirror.</p></div><p>Of <a href="http://www.prysm.com/about\_lpd.html" title="prysm.com">all the information I can find</a> [prysm.com], no one is addressing the thickness of the display unit.  I'm not saying it can't be done in close quarters but I'm basically inquiring how thick the unit must be in order for a laser beam to sweep across the phospher stripes that comprise the screen?  Are we talking about moving back towards the sizes of back projector displays?  Because it might not matter how efficient or awesome the picture display is to the consumer.  <br> <br>I guess that might explain why they're targeting airports and malls and not your living room.  <br> <br>

I believe <a href="http://www.google.com/patents?id=S5uiAAAAEBAJ&amp;pg=PA5&amp;dq=Roger+Hajjar+laser&amp;source=gbs\_selected\_pages&amp;cad=2#v=onepage&amp;q=Roger\%20Hajjar\%20laser&amp;f=false" title="google.com">this particular patent image illustrates what I'm wondering about</a> [google.com] (Roger Hajjar is one of Prysm's founders).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>CA-based Prysm came out of stealth mode yesterday</p></div><p>No one can fly under the radar when they need to patent their invention:<br>

<a href="http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=LAiZAAAAEBAJ" title="google.com">Laser displays using UV-excitable phosphors emitting visible colored light</a> [google.com] <br>
<a href="http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=FlmZAAAAEBAJ" title="google.com">Laser vector scanner systems with display screens having optical fluorescent materials</a> [google.com] <br>
<a href="http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=S5uiAAAAEBAJ" title="google.com">Optical designs for scanning beam display systems using fluorescent screens</a> [google.com] <br>
<a href="http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=QriaAAAAEBAJ" title="google.com">Phosphor Compositions For Scanning Beam Displays</a> [google.com] <br> <br>

Prysm's founders (Amit Jain and Roger Hajjar) have had their names on quite a few display related patents since 2005.  I'm excited a small startup can enter this market but I'm skeptical of the marketability due to the one drawback: a step backwards in compactness and style.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And they should be easier to manufacture too , since they do n't have a backplane of transistors like LCD screens : the image is generated by a laser beam that sweeps across phosphor stripes under the control of a scanning mirror.Of all the information I can find [ prysm.com ] , no one is addressing the thickness of the display unit .
I 'm not saying it ca n't be done in close quarters but I 'm basically inquiring how thick the unit must be in order for a laser beam to sweep across the phospher stripes that comprise the screen ?
Are we talking about moving back towards the sizes of back projector displays ?
Because it might not matter how efficient or awesome the picture display is to the consumer .
I guess that might explain why they 're targeting airports and malls and not your living room .
I believe this particular patent image illustrates what I 'm wondering about [ google.com ] ( Roger Hajjar is one of Prysm 's founders ) .CA-based Prysm came out of stealth mode yesterdayNo one can fly under the radar when they need to patent their invention : Laser displays using UV-excitable phosphors emitting visible colored light [ google.com ] Laser vector scanner systems with display screens having optical fluorescent materials [ google.com ] Optical designs for scanning beam display systems using fluorescent screens [ google.com ] Phosphor Compositions For Scanning Beam Displays [ google.com ] Prysm 's founders ( Amit Jain and Roger Hajjar ) have had their names on quite a few display related patents since 2005 .
I 'm excited a small startup can enter this market but I 'm skeptical of the marketability due to the one drawback : a step backwards in compactness and style .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And they should be easier to manufacture too, since they don't have a backplane of transistors like LCD screens: the image is generated by a laser beam that sweeps across phosphor stripes under the control of a scanning mirror.Of all the information I can find [prysm.com], no one is addressing the thickness of the display unit.
I'm not saying it can't be done in close quarters but I'm basically inquiring how thick the unit must be in order for a laser beam to sweep across the phospher stripes that comprise the screen?
Are we talking about moving back towards the sizes of back projector displays?
Because it might not matter how efficient or awesome the picture display is to the consumer.
I guess that might explain why they're targeting airports and malls and not your living room.
I believe this particular patent image illustrates what I'm wondering about [google.com] (Roger Hajjar is one of Prysm's founders).CA-based Prysm came out of stealth mode yesterdayNo one can fly under the radar when they need to patent their invention:

Laser displays using UV-excitable phosphors emitting visible colored light [google.com] 
Laser vector scanner systems with display screens having optical fluorescent materials [google.com] 
Optical designs for scanning beam display systems using fluorescent screens [google.com] 
Phosphor Compositions For Scanning Beam Displays [google.com]  

Prysm's founders (Amit Jain and Roger Hajjar) have had their names on quite a few display related patents since 2005.
I'm excited a small startup can enter this market but I'm skeptical of the marketability due to the one drawback: a step backwards in compactness and style.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752224</id>
	<title>And the news is...?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263404940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So it's an upgraded projection tv.  Instead of DLP (digital light projection [copyrighted to TI]) it's Digital Laser Positioning....  Instead of large numbers of mirrors it would really only require a few, allthough for faster rates will probably have more than 3 (RBG)  I'd be interested to find out how thick they're going to be.  Obviously projection Tv's are better than CRTs, but is this going to be that much better than projection tvs?<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; I suppose more mirrors (sectioning the screen) means it could be better than standard projection screens, but would make it more expensive.  At what angle does the effect the lasers have start diminishing, causing the screen to dim/fade/color bleed?  Due to the properties of lasers, obviously angle is going to have much less effect than with standard projection screens, but I'd still like to see the mechanics I suppose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So it 's an upgraded projection tv .
Instead of DLP ( digital light projection [ copyrighted to TI ] ) it 's Digital Laser Positioning.... Instead of large numbers of mirrors it would really only require a few , allthough for faster rates will probably have more than 3 ( RBG ) I 'd be interested to find out how thick they 're going to be .
Obviously projection Tv 's are better than CRTs , but is this going to be that much better than projection tvs ?
    I suppose more mirrors ( sectioning the screen ) means it could be better than standard projection screens , but would make it more expensive .
At what angle does the effect the lasers have start diminishing , causing the screen to dim/fade/color bleed ?
Due to the properties of lasers , obviously angle is going to have much less effect than with standard projection screens , but I 'd still like to see the mechanics I suppose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So it's an upgraded projection tv.
Instead of DLP (digital light projection [copyrighted to TI]) it's Digital Laser Positioning....  Instead of large numbers of mirrors it would really only require a few, allthough for faster rates will probably have more than 3 (RBG)  I'd be interested to find out how thick they're going to be.
Obviously projection Tv's are better than CRTs, but is this going to be that much better than projection tvs?
    I suppose more mirrors (sectioning the screen) means it could be better than standard projection screens, but would make it more expensive.
At what angle does the effect the lasers have start diminishing, causing the screen to dim/fade/color bleed?
Due to the properties of lasers, obviously angle is going to have much less effect than with standard projection screens, but I'd still like to see the mechanics I suppose.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751520</id>
	<title>Hey! You know what?</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1263402120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I bet you could do that with electron beams too!  And with no moving parts!  I should patent that...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bet you could do that with electron beams too !
And with no moving parts !
I should patent that.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bet you could do that with electron beams too!
And with no moving parts!
I should patent that...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750998</id>
	<title>Re:How Thick is the Display?</title>
	<author>ari\_j</author>
	<datestamp>1263400140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they can find a market where energy efficiency is more important than thickness and durability (another issue that I would be concerned about in anything with moving parts, mirrors, etc.), then they should be able to do alright with their product.  I am just not sure I can think of a market where durability is less important than energy efficiency.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they can find a market where energy efficiency is more important than thickness and durability ( another issue that I would be concerned about in anything with moving parts , mirrors , etc .
) , then they should be able to do alright with their product .
I am just not sure I can think of a market where durability is less important than energy efficiency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they can find a market where energy efficiency is more important than thickness and durability (another issue that I would be concerned about in anything with moving parts, mirrors, etc.
), then they should be able to do alright with their product.
I am just not sure I can think of a market where durability is less important than energy efficiency.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30753450</id>
	<title>Re:LPD screen or LPD screen?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263409500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I upgraded to FFLAs   (F-Four Letter Acronyms) years ago.  I'm now thinking of moving on to FFFLAs (F-F-Five Letter Acronyms) as soon as possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I upgraded to FFLAs ( F-Four Letter Acronyms ) years ago .
I 'm now thinking of moving on to FFFLAs ( F-F-Five Letter Acronyms ) as soon as possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I upgraded to FFLAs   (F-Four Letter Acronyms) years ago.
I'm now thinking of moving on to FFFLAs (F-F-Five Letter Acronyms) as soon as possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751478</id>
	<title>Re:How Thick is the Display?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263402000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>a step backwards in compactness and style.</i> <br>
More important than compactness and style, I'd go with the energy efficiency, but also weight. I wouldn't care about carrying a big box of cotton instead of a small box of lead. If the big one is certainly lighter and produces quality results I could go for the big box (I don't see correlation between compactness and style btw). <br> <br>They just need to market it right. I could come up with a car analogy, but I'd leave it to you or the caranalogyguy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>a step backwards in compactness and style .
More important than compactness and style , I 'd go with the energy efficiency , but also weight .
I would n't care about carrying a big box of cotton instead of a small box of lead .
If the big one is certainly lighter and produces quality results I could go for the big box ( I do n't see correlation between compactness and style btw ) .
They just need to market it right .
I could come up with a car analogy , but I 'd leave it to you or the caranalogyguy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a step backwards in compactness and style.
More important than compactness and style, I'd go with the energy efficiency, but also weight.
I wouldn't care about carrying a big box of cotton instead of a small box of lead.
If the big one is certainly lighter and produces quality results I could go for the big box (I don't see correlation between compactness and style btw).
They just need to market it right.
I could come up with a car analogy, but I'd leave it to you or the caranalogyguy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751374</id>
	<title>Vaguely familiar</title>
	<author>C9OE-6015-B8</author>
	<datestamp>1263401580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is not far removed from the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scophony" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Scophony projection system of the 1930's.</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not far removed from the Scophony projection system of the 1930 's .
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not far removed from the Scophony projection system of the 1930's.
[wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752582</id>
	<title>Back to flickering again?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1263406260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yay, sounds exactly like a CRT, just with a laser instead of an electron beam. But the flickering would obviously still be there. Or if not, the refresh rate would be bad.</p><p>I don&rsquo;t see this becoming a hit with me. I can still use my CRT. That one at least has a flexible resolution... And the colors also still blow any LCD I have seen out of the water. (I have to note, that this is not your average CRT thought. It did cost about $7200 when it was new. I bought it cheap on eBay.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yay , sounds exactly like a CRT , just with a laser instead of an electron beam .
But the flickering would obviously still be there .
Or if not , the refresh rate would be bad.I don    t see this becoming a hit with me .
I can still use my CRT .
That one at least has a flexible resolution... And the colors also still blow any LCD I have seen out of the water .
( I have to note , that this is not your average CRT thought .
It did cost about $ 7200 when it was new .
I bought it cheap on eBay .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yay, sounds exactly like a CRT, just with a laser instead of an electron beam.
But the flickering would obviously still be there.
Or if not, the refresh rate would be bad.I don’t see this becoming a hit with me.
I can still use my CRT.
That one at least has a flexible resolution... And the colors also still blow any LCD I have seen out of the water.
(I have to note, that this is not your average CRT thought.
It did cost about $7200 when it was new.
I bought it cheap on eBay.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752714</id>
	<title>Re:do not want</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263406680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>guaranteed to be thicker than LED <em>or</em> LCD, and with phosphor delay; I want LED so that I can have [effectively] instant transitions. we can get back the delay effect with processing, but you can't eliminate phosphor delays when you've got phosphors.</p></div><p>There is essentially zero phosphor delay (I defy you to measure it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I am a visual neuroscientist and have, so yes, it is possible, and no, it is not easy) on the scale of perceptual latencies.  I believe the latency from excitation to phosphor emission is on the nanosecond scale.  The typical perceptual delays in the early visual system (retina and the first few stages of processing in the brain) are on order of 30 milliseconds, going from the time photons enter the eye to the first wave of activity in primary visual cortex.  Different orders of magnitude.  Like 6.  Phosphor delay is irrelevant.</p><p>What you are perhaps thinking of is the phosphor DECAY which is another thing entirely.  When phosphors are excited (such as by an impinging electron or photon beam) the emitted brightness steps up almost instantaneously and then decays down through an exponential relaxation curve.  That decay time can tend to blur images when too long, or induce eye bleed (to use the vernacular) when the update rate is too low.  The thing is that phosphor decays can be adjusted by reformulating the compounds, and are determined ultimately at time of manufacturing.  Very fast phosphors are available to support KHz updates, but also very slow ones (some older oscilloscopes have phosphor decay constants measured in seconds).</p><p>Contemporary LCD monitors have typically 2 or 3 frames of latency because of the push to get faster transition times.  Those 5 ms response time LCDs get fast specs by overdriving the pixels in a highly controlled fashion, but one that requires knowing what is on the next handful of frames.  Since we live in a causal world, that means introducing a 2-3 frame latency for processing within the display.  Since the update rates on LCDs are typically 60 Hz, that's on order of 45 ms latency, a non-trivial fraction of the loop from visual perception to motor action (known in the gaming vernacular as twitch response).  If you're watching a movie, that latency is irrelevant and wholly, entirely unperceived.  If you're playing a game, then it is very important.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>guaranteed to be thicker than LED or LCD , and with phosphor delay ; I want LED so that I can have [ effectively ] instant transitions .
we can get back the delay effect with processing , but you ca n't eliminate phosphor delays when you 've got phosphors.There is essentially zero phosphor delay ( I defy you to measure it ... I am a visual neuroscientist and have , so yes , it is possible , and no , it is not easy ) on the scale of perceptual latencies .
I believe the latency from excitation to phosphor emission is on the nanosecond scale .
The typical perceptual delays in the early visual system ( retina and the first few stages of processing in the brain ) are on order of 30 milliseconds , going from the time photons enter the eye to the first wave of activity in primary visual cortex .
Different orders of magnitude .
Like 6 .
Phosphor delay is irrelevant.What you are perhaps thinking of is the phosphor DECAY which is another thing entirely .
When phosphors are excited ( such as by an impinging electron or photon beam ) the emitted brightness steps up almost instantaneously and then decays down through an exponential relaxation curve .
That decay time can tend to blur images when too long , or induce eye bleed ( to use the vernacular ) when the update rate is too low .
The thing is that phosphor decays can be adjusted by reformulating the compounds , and are determined ultimately at time of manufacturing .
Very fast phosphors are available to support KHz updates , but also very slow ones ( some older oscilloscopes have phosphor decay constants measured in seconds ) .Contemporary LCD monitors have typically 2 or 3 frames of latency because of the push to get faster transition times .
Those 5 ms response time LCDs get fast specs by overdriving the pixels in a highly controlled fashion , but one that requires knowing what is on the next handful of frames .
Since we live in a causal world , that means introducing a 2-3 frame latency for processing within the display .
Since the update rates on LCDs are typically 60 Hz , that 's on order of 45 ms latency , a non-trivial fraction of the loop from visual perception to motor action ( known in the gaming vernacular as twitch response ) .
If you 're watching a movie , that latency is irrelevant and wholly , entirely unperceived .
If you 're playing a game , then it is very important .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>guaranteed to be thicker than LED or LCD, and with phosphor delay; I want LED so that I can have [effectively] instant transitions.
we can get back the delay effect with processing, but you can't eliminate phosphor delays when you've got phosphors.There is essentially zero phosphor delay (I defy you to measure it ... I am a visual neuroscientist and have, so yes, it is possible, and no, it is not easy) on the scale of perceptual latencies.
I believe the latency from excitation to phosphor emission is on the nanosecond scale.
The typical perceptual delays in the early visual system (retina and the first few stages of processing in the brain) are on order of 30 milliseconds, going from the time photons enter the eye to the first wave of activity in primary visual cortex.
Different orders of magnitude.
Like 6.
Phosphor delay is irrelevant.What you are perhaps thinking of is the phosphor DECAY which is another thing entirely.
When phosphors are excited (such as by an impinging electron or photon beam) the emitted brightness steps up almost instantaneously and then decays down through an exponential relaxation curve.
That decay time can tend to blur images when too long, or induce eye bleed (to use the vernacular) when the update rate is too low.
The thing is that phosphor decays can be adjusted by reformulating the compounds, and are determined ultimately at time of manufacturing.
Very fast phosphors are available to support KHz updates, but also very slow ones (some older oscilloscopes have phosphor decay constants measured in seconds).Contemporary LCD monitors have typically 2 or 3 frames of latency because of the push to get faster transition times.
Those 5 ms response time LCDs get fast specs by overdriving the pixels in a highly controlled fashion, but one that requires knowing what is on the next handful of frames.
Since we live in a causal world, that means introducing a 2-3 frame latency for processing within the display.
Since the update rates on LCDs are typically 60 Hz, that's on order of 45 ms latency, a non-trivial fraction of the loop from visual perception to motor action (known in the gaming vernacular as twitch response).
If you're watching a movie, that latency is irrelevant and wholly, entirely unperceived.
If you're playing a game, then it is very important.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752390</id>
	<title>Re:phosphor burn?</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1263405540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Phosphor burn a horrible weakness of CRTs?!? Maybe for projection CRTs, but those run at insane brightness. I've never had burned phosphors on any of my CRTs.

</p><p>I'm wondering about focus and geometry issues, the main problems I have with CRTs. Please, let's not go back to any kind of scan-the-dot-across-the-screen systems that can become misaligned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Phosphor burn a horrible weakness of CRTs ? ! ?
Maybe for projection CRTs , but those run at insane brightness .
I 've never had burned phosphors on any of my CRTs .
I 'm wondering about focus and geometry issues , the main problems I have with CRTs .
Please , let 's not go back to any kind of scan-the-dot-across-the-screen systems that can become misaligned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Phosphor burn a horrible weakness of CRTs?!?
Maybe for projection CRTs, but those run at insane brightness.
I've never had burned phosphors on any of my CRTs.
I'm wondering about focus and geometry issues, the main problems I have with CRTs.
Please, let's not go back to any kind of scan-the-dot-across-the-screen systems that can become misaligned.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30755674</id>
	<title>Re:phosphor burn?</title>
	<author>omnichad</author>
	<datestamp>1263375060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Terrible flicker is why.  Phosphor has a slower decay rate, so that the pixel stays lit while it waits for the laser to come by on its next pass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Terrible flicker is why .
Phosphor has a slower decay rate , so that the pixel stays lit while it waits for the laser to come by on its next pass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Terrible flicker is why.
Phosphor has a slower decay rate, so that the pixel stays lit while it waits for the laser to come by on its next pass.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752062</id>
	<title>I'm surprised Slashdotters haven't jumped up+down</title>
	<author>SuperBanana</author>
	<datestamp>1263404460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>I believe this particular patent image illustrates what I'm wondering about [google.com] (Roger Hajjar is one of Prysm's founders).</i>

</p><p>So let me get this straight- they've patented a design that's already used for laser shows, CRTs, and thousands of persistence of vision devices?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe this particular patent image illustrates what I 'm wondering about [ google.com ] ( Roger Hajjar is one of Prysm 's founders ) .
So let me get this straight- they 've patented a design that 's already used for laser shows , CRTs , and thousands of persistence of vision devices ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I believe this particular patent image illustrates what I'm wondering about [google.com] (Roger Hajjar is one of Prysm's founders).
So let me get this straight- they've patented a design that's already used for laser shows, CRTs, and thousands of persistence of vision devices?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752476</id>
	<title>Re:Forget LAPD, I'm waiting for FEDs</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1263405960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Insert LAPD joke.</p><p>And FEDs are basically many tiny CRTs in one box.<br>One per pixel, basically.</p><p>SEDs are FEDs but one per column/row.</p><p>The advantage of these displays comes from removing the need to steer the gun.  We can use fancy dancy computer stuff to drive many small ones individually now.</p><p>The core reason they make good displays is the same reason a CRT makes a good display.  Electrons on phosphors on glass are fucking delicious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Insert LAPD joke.And FEDs are basically many tiny CRTs in one box.One per pixel , basically.SEDs are FEDs but one per column/row.The advantage of these displays comes from removing the need to steer the gun .
We can use fancy dancy computer stuff to drive many small ones individually now.The core reason they make good displays is the same reason a CRT makes a good display .
Electrons on phosphors on glass are fucking delicious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Insert LAPD joke.And FEDs are basically many tiny CRTs in one box.One per pixel, basically.SEDs are FEDs but one per column/row.The advantage of these displays comes from removing the need to steer the gun.
We can use fancy dancy computer stuff to drive many small ones individually now.The core reason they make good displays is the same reason a CRT makes a good display.
Electrons on phosphors on glass are fucking delicious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752120</id>
	<title>Re:Similar idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263404580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dang, you beat me to the, "why don't we use electrons instead of lasers' comment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dang , you beat me to the , " why do n't we use electrons instead of lasers ' comment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dang, you beat me to the, "why don't we use electrons instead of lasers' comment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30754426</id>
	<title>Re:do not want</title>
	<author>ArundelCastle</author>
	<datestamp>1263413580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed. My question is how can there be a sweeping laser without having screen flicker?  Especially with a mechanical mirror in the mix.<br>I thought we were done with headache inducing refresh rates?  Hopefully the frequency noise is avoided.</p><p>Is the main difference between laser and cathode ray in the use of magnetism vs. mirrors?  That would mean the laser beam generators can be snugly parallel to the screen and then reflected?  TFA is more like an entertainment piece, so more info on the comparative tech is appreciated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
My question is how can there be a sweeping laser without having screen flicker ?
Especially with a mechanical mirror in the mix.I thought we were done with headache inducing refresh rates ?
Hopefully the frequency noise is avoided.Is the main difference between laser and cathode ray in the use of magnetism vs. mirrors ? That would mean the laser beam generators can be snugly parallel to the screen and then reflected ?
TFA is more like an entertainment piece , so more info on the comparative tech is appreciated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
My question is how can there be a sweeping laser without having screen flicker?
Especially with a mechanical mirror in the mix.I thought we were done with headache inducing refresh rates?
Hopefully the frequency noise is avoided.Is the main difference between laser and cathode ray in the use of magnetism vs. mirrors?  That would mean the laser beam generators can be snugly parallel to the screen and then reflected?
TFA is more like an entertainment piece, so more info on the comparative tech is appreciated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751516</id>
	<title>what is the refresh speed? - factor for TVs</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1263402120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People are spoiled by 80Hz+ now.  E-paper is one-half Hertz and too slow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People are spoiled by 80Hz + now .
E-paper is one-half Hertz and too slow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People are spoiled by 80Hz+ now.
E-paper is one-half Hertz and too slow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751130</id>
	<title>Re:How Thick is the Display?</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1263400740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, but cost is also a factor in a lot of cases, and this could well be an acceptable compromise for a lot of people.</p><p>These are supposedly a lot cheaper to manufacture and draw a lot less power, so if you are willing to put up with something that has some depth, you may be able to skip the 55 inch screen and go straight to 70 inches for the same money, and lower long-term costs of operation.  Or get that 55-inch screen and have $800 left to buy a whole lot of movies to play on it.</p><p>A lot of people still have CRT or back-projection televisions.  Something like this could appeal to those people, because they are already used to their TV having some depth anyway, and you can get them to high def in an affordable way.  I have to imagine a laser projection could at least be slimmer than a CRT.</p><p>Plus, CRTs are HEAVY in addition to being bulky.  It sounds like something like this would be a box filled with mostly air, so it's at least easier to move around.</p><p>Actually, if you made 4 lasers (or 1 laser with a very clever series of 4 mirrors), each one could be responsible for 1/4 of the screen and you'd end up with something shallower than a 1-laser rig.  16 lasers or mirrors would make it shallower still.  But then you're starting to draw as much power as an LCD and manufacturing costs are probably as high or higher.  So there are adaptations to this technology that could make them slimmer, if you're willing to pay for them, and if you don't apply them to the point you are exceeding the cost of LCD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but cost is also a factor in a lot of cases , and this could well be an acceptable compromise for a lot of people.These are supposedly a lot cheaper to manufacture and draw a lot less power , so if you are willing to put up with something that has some depth , you may be able to skip the 55 inch screen and go straight to 70 inches for the same money , and lower long-term costs of operation .
Or get that 55-inch screen and have $ 800 left to buy a whole lot of movies to play on it.A lot of people still have CRT or back-projection televisions .
Something like this could appeal to those people , because they are already used to their TV having some depth anyway , and you can get them to high def in an affordable way .
I have to imagine a laser projection could at least be slimmer than a CRT.Plus , CRTs are HEAVY in addition to being bulky .
It sounds like something like this would be a box filled with mostly air , so it 's at least easier to move around.Actually , if you made 4 lasers ( or 1 laser with a very clever series of 4 mirrors ) , each one could be responsible for 1/4 of the screen and you 'd end up with something shallower than a 1-laser rig .
16 lasers or mirrors would make it shallower still .
But then you 're starting to draw as much power as an LCD and manufacturing costs are probably as high or higher .
So there are adaptations to this technology that could make them slimmer , if you 're willing to pay for them , and if you do n't apply them to the point you are exceeding the cost of LCD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but cost is also a factor in a lot of cases, and this could well be an acceptable compromise for a lot of people.These are supposedly a lot cheaper to manufacture and draw a lot less power, so if you are willing to put up with something that has some depth, you may be able to skip the 55 inch screen and go straight to 70 inches for the same money, and lower long-term costs of operation.
Or get that 55-inch screen and have $800 left to buy a whole lot of movies to play on it.A lot of people still have CRT or back-projection televisions.
Something like this could appeal to those people, because they are already used to their TV having some depth anyway, and you can get them to high def in an affordable way.
I have to imagine a laser projection could at least be slimmer than a CRT.Plus, CRTs are HEAVY in addition to being bulky.
It sounds like something like this would be a box filled with mostly air, so it's at least easier to move around.Actually, if you made 4 lasers (or 1 laser with a very clever series of 4 mirrors), each one could be responsible for 1/4 of the screen and you'd end up with something shallower than a 1-laser rig.
16 lasers or mirrors would make it shallower still.
But then you're starting to draw as much power as an LCD and manufacturing costs are probably as high or higher.
So there are adaptations to this technology that could make them slimmer, if you're willing to pay for them, and if you don't apply them to the point you are exceeding the cost of LCD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752134</id>
	<title>Re:Ouch</title>
	<author>jabuzz</author>
	<datestamp>1263404640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really, I thought the lasers and moving mirror reliability had been fix years ago. Least I have never seen a laser printer fail due to a broken spinning mirror or laser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , I thought the lasers and moving mirror reliability had been fix years ago .
Least I have never seen a laser printer fail due to a broken spinning mirror or laser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, I thought the lasers and moving mirror reliability had been fix years ago.
Least I have never seen a laser printer fail due to a broken spinning mirror or laser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751790</id>
	<title>Re:How Thick is the Display?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263403260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...no one is addressing the thickness of the display unit.</p></div><p>It all depends on the size of the shark used.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...no one is addressing the thickness of the display unit.It all depends on the size of the shark used .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...no one is addressing the thickness of the display unit.It all depends on the size of the shark used.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750822</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30770678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30753344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30753432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30755548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30754784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30753850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30771630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30755458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30753246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30755680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30753906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30756674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30754884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30753416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30754426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30753450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30756268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30753994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30755014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30753280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30754814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30754254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30753160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30760326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30753328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30753324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30755674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30753814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30754304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30755630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30757772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30758148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1436209_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30755906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1436209.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751198
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1436209.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751770
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30753246
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30754426
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752776
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30754784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30755014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752714
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30755548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752634
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1436209.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751952
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1436209.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751940
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1436209.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751444
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30753814
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751902
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30753160
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30758148
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752836
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30753450
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30753416
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752012
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752198
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1436209.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30755458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30753994
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1436209.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751252
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1436209.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751044
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1436209.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751374
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1436209.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752582
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1436209.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30753344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30755680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750978
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30755906
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30756268
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30754304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30770678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751130
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30754254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30757772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751136
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30754884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751326
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30753432
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30753850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30771630
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1436209.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30753280
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1436209.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751666
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1436209.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30750972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30753328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30753324
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1436209.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752156
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1436209.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752638
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30755674
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30755630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752390
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1436209.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751086
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1436209.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751744
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1436209.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752278
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1436209.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30756674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30754814
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1436209.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30751212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30753906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30760326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1436209.30752126
</commentlist>
</conversation>
